Excise (Central Gov.) vs. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the explanation provided for the delay of 1473 days was identical to the explanation offered in CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same Court for being barred by limitation. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify condoning such a substantial delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of its previous order in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the present appeal along with all connected applications as being barred by limitation. No decision was made on the merits of the CESTAT order.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh challenging an order dated March 9, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was delayed by 1473 days. The appellant attributed the delay to the decision to file the appeal being taken after the Supreme Court's reiteration of law 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 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 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1473 days and the explanation provided for the delay, particularly in light of previous judgments of this Court. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors, which settled the law and prompted the filing of the appeal. The appellant's counsel admitted that the grounds for condonation were the same as in CEA No. 10/2020. The revenue relied on the principle that a significant delay, if not adequately explained, should lead to dismissal. The respondent (Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Ltd) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation.