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 appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1203 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue 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. Applying the precedent set by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, the present application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without sufficient grounds for condonation, will be dismissed, especially when similar applications have been rejected previously on identical grounds.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, the appellant, filed an appeal (CEA No. 169/2023) 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 was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel conceded that a similar issue concerning condonation of delay on similar grounds had arisen 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 (CEA No. 169/2023) can be condoned, considering the grounds urged by the appellant/applicant? Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellant sought condonation of delay, urging grounds similar to those presented in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where delay condonation was sought. The appellant relied on the principle that similar grounds should be treated consistently. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's application for condonation of delay was not accepted.