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 as barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that earlier case, an appeal with a similar delay and on similar grounds for condonation was dismissed. The Court found that the facts and grounds presented in the current appeal were identical to those in the previous case. Therefore, the principle laid down in the order dated 23.05.2022 in CEA No. 10/2020 applied directly to the present application. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial question of law, as the appeal was disposed of solely on the ground of limitation. No specific operative directions were issued beyond dismissing the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 170/2023) against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1203 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel conceded that a similar issue regarding condonation of delay on similar grounds had been raised in 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. The present appeal concerns the same respondent, M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the grounds urged by the appellant. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant sought condonation of delay, arguing that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons. They relied on the principle that substantial questions of law should not be dismissed on technicalities of limitation, especially when the delay is not deliberate or due to negligence. Respondent (M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.): The respondent did not file any reply or make submissions as recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implicitly considered the respondent's position by referring to the dismissal of a similar appeal in CEA No. 10/2020.