Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Jammu
Facts
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1733 days, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue concerning delay condonation had been raised in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal involves the same grounds for delay condonation as the dismissed appeal.
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appeal was delayed by 1733 days and that the appellant had sought condonation of this delay. Crucially, the Court observed that a similar issue regarding delay condonation had arisen in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that instance, the Division Bench of the same High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning and precedent from CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the present application for condonation of delay was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. No specific findings were made on the merits of the CESTAT order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against the CESTAT order dated March 6, 2018, is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1733 days? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar grounds for delay had been presented in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd Jammu). However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent did not contest the limitation period or that their arguments were not considered persuasive enough to overcome the delay.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 13.02.2023
CM no. 495/2023
The appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, is delayed by 1733 days. Hence, a separate application seeking condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the similar issue had arisen in an appeal bearing CEA No. 10/2020, wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
In view of the above, what has said by the Divisio
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.