Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu 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 1829 days was identical to the explanation previously rejected by the same Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify the condonation of such a substantial delay. Therefore, applying the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the appeal along with all connected applications. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, if not adequately explained and if similar explanations have been previously rejected by the same court, will lead to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation. No specific issue regarding the merits of the CESTAT order was decided.

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 after a delay of 1829 days. The appellant explained 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 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 fresh grounds were pleaded 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 the delay of 1829 days and the explanation provided for the delay, particularly in light of previous High Court decisions on similar grounds? The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to take a decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The petitioner relied on this Supreme Court judgment to justify the delay. The respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court was primarily concerned with the condonation of delay under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the application of principles of limitation as applied in prior judgments of the same High Court.