Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Hitachi Home And Life Solutions INDIA LTD Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided for the delay of 1494 days, which was based on a Supreme Court judgment, had not been accepted by the Division Bench of the same High Court in a similar case (CEA No. 10/2020). The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and no fresh grounds were pleaded for condonation of the significant delay. Therefore, following its own precedent in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the explanation for the delay was insufficient. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against an order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was delayed by 1494 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 case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and no new grounds were pleaded for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if so, whether the delay of 1494 days can be condoned? The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the law was settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, which provided a basis for filing the appeal. The appellant's counsel also fairly submitted that the case was identical to a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted by the Court. The revenue did not present any arguments against the dismissal on grounds of limitation.