Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Jai Bharat Crop Chemical PVT LTD Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 613 days, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had been addressed in a prior appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), where the Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on similar grounds for condonation of delay. The Court noted that the reasoning in the previous order would apply to the present application.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation due to a delay of 613 days. The Court found that the grounds for condonation of delay presented by the appellant were not sufficient to justify the significant delay. The Court referred to its previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar appeal with similar grounds for condonation of delay was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Court applied the same reasoning to the present case, concluding that the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no issues other than limitation were decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 613 days. 2. Whether the grounds presented for condonation of delay are sufficient to overcome the significant delay. The petitioner (Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise) argued that the delay was unintentional and sought condonation. The petitioner relied on the principle that similar grounds for condonation were urged in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). The respondent (Jai Bharat Crop Chemical Pvt. Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the respondent.