Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Bbf Industries Sidco Igc Samba J And K
Held
The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that a similar application for condonation of delay, filed on similar grounds in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Court found that the reasoning and decision in the previous case applied on all fours to the present application. Therefore, the delay of 1190 days could not be condoned. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court Division Bench has dismissed an appeal for inordinate delay on similar grounds, subsequent similar appeals will also be dismissed on the same basis. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 173/2023) before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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 1190 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue regarding delay condonation had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on similar grounds. The present appeal was therefore considered in light of that precedent.
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. The Petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and sought condonation. The Respondent (M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation. The Court considered the precedent set by a previous Division Bench order in CEA No. 10/2020, which dealt with a similar delay condonation application on similar grounds and was dismissed.
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. 173 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 1190 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.