Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise vs. Emcure Pharmaceuticals LTD Sidco Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1351 days, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on similar grounds for condonation of delay. The present appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The appellant sought condonation of delay for 1351 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for condonation of delay were similar. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning to the present case, the Court found that the application for condonation of delay could not be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed along with connected applications for being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that if a previous appeal with identical grounds for delay condonation was dismissed as time-barred, subsequent appeals with similar delays and grounds will also be dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1351 days. 2. Whether the grounds urged for condonation of delay are sufficient to overcome the significant delay. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar grounds had been presented in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in this particular case. However, it notes that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the issue had arisen in a prior appeal where the court did not accept the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.