Commissioner Of Central CGST 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 reasoning was based on a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that case, the Court had dismissed an appeal filed with a similar delay and on similar grounds for condonation. The present appeal, CEA No. 152 of 2023, was found to be on 'all fours' with the previous case. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was not accepted, and the appeal itself was dismissed as being time-barred. 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. 152/2023) 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 1203 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the appellant also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. However, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1203 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, presenting grounds that were similar to those urged in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where condonation was sought. Revenue's Argument: Not recorded. The judgment states the appellant's counsel made submissions, implying no specific argument was made by the revenue.