Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Sds Ramcides Crop Science PVT LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu 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. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were similar to those urged in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, a Division Bench of the same High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgment 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. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 135/2023) 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 with a delay of 1295 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. 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, in that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. This issue arises under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the timeliness of appeals to the High Court. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned, presenting similar grounds as in a previous case. The revenue (appellant) relied on the grounds presented in their application for condonation of delay. The respondent (SDS Ramcides Crop Science Pvt.) did not present arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation.