Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Jay Ambey Aromatics Sidco Industrial Complex Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1275 days, and a separate application was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the appellant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. However, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. The present application was argued to be on all fours with the dismissed appeal.

Held

The Court held that the application for condonation of delay was not maintainable. It was observed that a similar issue had been dealt with by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, where the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Court found that the grounds urged for condonation of delay in the present case were identical to those in the previous case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the earlier decision, the Court dismissed the present appeal as being barred by limitation. No specific directions were issued regarding the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1275 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and that the issue involved was of significant importance. They relied on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision was heavily influenced by a previous judgment of the same High Court in a similar matter.