Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S J And K Pigments PVT LTD Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation for the delay, which was based on awaiting a Supreme Court decision, had not been accepted by the Court in a similar case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The Court found that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, with no additional grounds presented for condoning the significant delay of 1484 days. Therefore, applying the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a consistent approach will be taken regarding the condonation of delay, especially when the grounds are identical to those previously rejected by the same Court.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging an order dated March 22, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1484 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. The appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those presented in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same High Court for being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if so, whether the delay of 1484 days can be condoned. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the need to await clarification and settlement of the law by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant further submitted that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those presented in CEA No. 10/2020. The respondent (M/s J&K Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) did not record any arguments in the judgment. The revenue relied on the principle that similar explanations for delay have not been accepted by the Court in previous matters.