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

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, 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 filed with a delay of 1352 days, for which a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had been dealt with in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on similar grounds. The present appeal concerned Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Sidco Jammu.

Held

The Court held that the application for condonation of delay was not acceptable. The reasoning was based on a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which dealt with a similar appeal filed with a delay and on similar grounds. In that precedent, the Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same logic, the present appeal, CEA No. 13/2023, was also dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original CESTAT order, as the appeal was disposed of solely on the ground of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1352 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned? The petitioner (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu) argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons and sought condonation. The respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd) did not appear to have made any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the delay. The Court's decision was primarily based on a previous Division Bench ruling in a similar case.