Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay of 1492 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries, was not accepted. The Court referred to its own previous order in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and lacked any additional grounds to justify condoning the substantial delay. Therefore, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

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 7, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1492 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 (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation was not accepted in a previous identical case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case had no additional grounds 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 1492 days? 2. Whether the explanation provided for the delay, citing a Supreme Court judgment, is sufficient to condone the delay? The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the need to await clarification and settlement of the law by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. The respondent (M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation. The Court's decision was based on its previous ruling in a similar case.