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. 166 of 2023) as being barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the grounds for condonation of delay in the present appeal were similar to those in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, a Division Bench of the High Court had considered a similar application for condonation of delay and had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the precedent set by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the present application for condonation of delay should also be rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 166/2023) against a final order dated March 6, 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 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.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should be condoned. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of the significant delay in filing the appeal, presenting grounds that were described as similar to those in a previous case. The petitioner relied on the grounds urged in the application for condonation of delay. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent, M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd., on the issue of delay condonation. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner's counsel fairly submitted the similarity of grounds to a prior case.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 29.11.2023
The present appeal being CEA No. 166 of 2023 filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, is delayed by 1203 days. Hence, a separate application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the similar issue had arisen in an appeal bearing CEA No. 10/2020, wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. In view of the above, what has been
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.