Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Alu Bond Enterprises Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammmu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay in the present appeal were similar to those urged in CEA No. 10/2020. 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 no reason to deviate. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was not accepted, and the appeal itself was dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific issue regarding the merits of the CESTAT order was decided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal (CEA No. 130 of 2023) against an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1318 days, and a separate application was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue regarding delay had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), where the grounds for condonation were similar, but the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1318 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. The appellant argued that the delay was due to administrative reasons and sought condonation. The revenue relied on a previous order of the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, where similar grounds for delay were not accepted, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The respondent did not record any arguments.