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 dismissed the appeal (CEA No. 181/2023) as being barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in a similar case (CEA No. 10/2020). In that prior case, the Court had not accepted the application for condonation of delay on similar grounds and had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was found to be on all fours with the previous one, leading to the same outcome. The Court applied the principle that if a similar matter has been decided on merits and the grounds are identical, the same reasoning would apply. No specific amount in dispute or tax period was mentioned.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 181/2023) before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, challenging 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 conceded that a similar issue regarding delay condonation had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on similar grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1135 days in filing the appeal (CEA No. 181/2023) can be condoned, considering the grounds presented by the appellant/petitioner. Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: The appellant sought condonation of delay, presenting grounds that were not detailed in the judgment but were described as similar to those in a prior case. The appellant relied on the principle that delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the Court's decision implies that the grounds for condonation were not found to be sufficient.