Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Alstrong Enterprises INDIA PVT LTD Samba Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that the explanation provided for the 1506-day delay was identical to that offered in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which had already been dismissed by the same Division Bench for being time-barred. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds pleaded to justify the significant delay. Therefore, applying the principle established in the prior order (CEA No. 10/2020), the Court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay. The ratio decidendi is that a repeated, unsubstantiated delay, especially when a similar explanation has been rejected previously, will lead to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal and all connected applications.

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 8, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1506 days. The appellant explained the 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. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation was not accepted in a previous identical case (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed by the same Division Bench for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that there were no new grounds presented in the current appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1506 days and the explanation provided by the appellant? Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because 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 they believed settled the law. They also acknowledged that the case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and no fresh grounds were pleaded. Contentions of the Respondent (M/s Alstrong Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.): The respondent did not file any recorded arguments. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely relied on the precedent set by the dismissal of CEA No. 10/2020.