Commissioner Of Crentral GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments Private Limited Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the issue of delay and condonation was similar to 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. Applying the same reasoning and precedent from CEA No. 10/2020, the present appeal (CEA No. 180/2023) was also dismissed as being barred by limitation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original dispute before CESTAT, as the appeal itself was dismissed on the procedural ground of limitation. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 180/2023) against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1135 days, and a separate application was filed seeking 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1135 days in filing the appeal (CEA No. 180/2023) can be condoned, considering the grounds presented by the appellant/petitioner? 2. Whether the principles laid down by the Division Bench in a previous, similar case (CEA No. 10/2020) are applicable to the present appeal? Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): Argued for condonation of delay, presenting grounds that were similar to those in a prior appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Relied on the fact that the grounds for delay were similar to the previous case. Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded for the revenue/state in the judgment regarding the condonation of delay.