Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided for the delay of 1473 days was identical to the one offered in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same Court on the grounds of limitation. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify condoning the significant delay. Therefore, following its own precedent in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the present appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient and distinct grounds for condonation, will lead to dismissal, especially when the explanation mirrors that of a previously dismissed case.

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, challenging an order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1473 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted by the Court, and that appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1473 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to obtain legal advice and the subsequent decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (though not explicitly stated as arguing, the Court's decision implies their position) did not need to argue as the Court relied on its previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, which had dismissed a similar appeal for delay. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the case was identical to the one in CEA No. 10/2020 and no fresh grounds were pleaded.