Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments PVT LTD Kathua J And K

Held

The Court dismissed the appeal (CEA No. 167/2023) as being barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the principle of stare decisis, specifically referencing a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that earlier case, the Court had considered a similar application for condonation of delay on comparable grounds and had ultimately dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The present Court found that the facts and grounds presented in CEA No. 167/2023 were identical to those in CEA No. 10/2020, and therefore, the previous ruling applied directly. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original dispute before CESTAT, as the appeal itself was found to be procedurally flawed due to the inordinate delay.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 167/2023) against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1203 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue regarding delay 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, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is liable to be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of the significant delay, arguing that similar grounds for delay had been presented in a previous appeal. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.). However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely did not contest the appellant's position on delay, or their arguments were not considered persuasive by the Court in light of the precedent.