Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana 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 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1318 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the appellant also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present application for condonation of delay was made by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against Uflex Ltd.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. 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 appellant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that prior case, a Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the present application for condonation of delay and the subsequent appeal were also barred by limitation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, as the appeal itself was not maintainable due to the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1318 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 (Uflex Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided based on the petitioner's submission and precedent. The Court had to decide whether the grounds presented by the petitioner were sufficient to overcome the significant delay, especially in light of a previous identical ruling by the same Court.