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 was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that previous case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Division Bench's order in CEA No. 10/2020 to the present case, the Court found that the application for condonation of delay was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute before CESTAT.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1203 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue regarding delay condonation 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 appellant conceded that the grounds for delay condonation in the present appeal were similar to those in the earlier case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the grounds presented by the appellant. 2. Whether the principles applied by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, which dismissed a similar appeal due to limitation, should be applied to the present case. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and sought condonation. The appellant relied on the fact that similar grounds for delay were presented in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. The revenue (appellant) also implicitly argued that the delay should be condoned to allow for a hearing on the merits of the case. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondent (M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) regarding the delay or the merits of the case, but their absence implies no opposition to the appellant's submissions on these points.