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

Held

The High Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1484 days, which was based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors., was identical to the explanation offered in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the same High Court had dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds presented in the present appeal to justify condoning the substantial delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of the previous order, the Court dismissed the current appeal along with all connected applications as 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 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against an order dated March 22, 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 1484 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation was not accepted 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 the previous one and no new grounds were presented for condoning the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1484 days? (Question of law turning on Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and principles of limitation). Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as the decision to file was taken after the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492, which clarified the law. They contended that this Supreme Court decision provided a fresh impetus and justification for pursuing the appeal. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue/State beyond what is implied by the appellant's concession. However, the Court's decision indicates that the Revenue's position, as reflected in the dismissal of a similar prior appeal, was that the delay was not sufficiently explained.