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 reasoning was based on a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that case, the Court had considered an appeal with similar grounds for delay condonation and had dismissed it as being barred by limitation. The present case was found to be on 'all fours' with the earlier case. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was not accepted, and consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on a specific set of facts and grounds for delay condonation, subsequent similar applications will be decided in line with that precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) 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 1130 days, and a separate application was made for 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 grounds for delay condonation were similar. 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 1130 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles governing condonation of delay, particularly in light of previous High Court pronouncements on similar facts. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued for condonation of delay, presenting grounds that were similar to those urged in a previous case (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue/state regarding the delay condonation application. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue/state's position was not persuasive enough to overcome the precedent set in the prior case.