Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appellant's explanation for the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries, had already been considered and rejected by the same High Court in a prior identical case (CEA No. 10/2020). The Court found no additional or fresh grounds presented in the current appeal to justify condoning the substantial delay of 1458 days. Therefore, the principle applied in CEA No. 10/2020 was deemed applicable on all fours. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications on the grounds of being barred by limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was significantly delayed by 1458 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court reiterated and settled the law in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation had not been accepted by the same Court in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to the previous one, with no new grounds presented for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1458 days and the explanation provided by the appellant, particularly in light of previous High Court decisions on similar grounds. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): Argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the need to await clarification and reiteration of the law by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492, which settled the legal position relevant to their case. Respondent (M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.): No arguments were recorded for the respondent as none appeared.