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. It noted that the explanation for the delay, which was based on awaiting a Supreme Court decision, had not been accepted by the Court in a previous, identical case (CEA No. 10/2020). The Court further observed that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the present case was identical to the one in CEA No. 10/2020 and that no additional or fresh grounds were pleaded to justify the substantial delay of 1486 days. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in the order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient justification or new grounds, will lead to dismissal, especially when similar explanations have been rejected in prior proceedings.

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 9, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1486 days. The appellant attributed the delay to a decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's reiteration of law 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 for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that there were no new grounds for condonation of the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if so, whether the delay of 1486 days can be condoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the need to await clarification and settlement of law by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492, which provided a basis for filing the present appeal. The petitioner contended that this legal development justified the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent did not file any reply or make any submissions as recorded in the judgment. The Court noted the petitioner's counsel's submission that the case was identical to a previously dismissed case and no fresh grounds were pleaded.