Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Jindal Drugs LTD Epip Kartholi Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

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 CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1045 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, despite similar grounds for condonation of delay being urged. The present appeal concerns Jindal Drugs Ltd. The tax period and the specific amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1045 days. The Court noted 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. In that 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 itself was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific issues were left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary ground of limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1045 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 for condonation of delay, citing grounds similar to those presented in a previous case. The respondent (Jindal Drugs Ltd.) did not present arguments in the provided text. The Court's decision hinges on whether the grounds for delay are sufficient and whether the precedent set in a prior, similar case should be followed. The petitioner relied on the general principle of allowing appeals on merits where possible, but the primary issue is the significant delay and the applicability of the previous ruling.