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 held that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not acceptable. The reasoning was based on a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which dealt with a similar issue of delay on comparable grounds. In that prior case, the Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the same principle to the present case, the Court found that the delay was not justifiable. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific amount in dispute is mentioned. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 172/2023) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1190 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue concerning delay had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), where the grounds for condonation were similar, but the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal concerns M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1190 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of delay, presenting grounds that were acknowledged as similar to those in a prior case. Respondent's Argument: No specific argument is recorded for the respondent, M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd., regarding the condonation of delay. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent would have benefited from the dismissal of the delayed appeal.