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

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation provided by the petitioner for the delay of 1484 days was not accepted. The Court noted that a similar explanation had been tendered and rejected by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The Court found that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and no fresh or additional grounds were pleaded to justify the condonation of the substantial delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of the earlier decision, the Court dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal along with 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 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 attributed the delay to the decision to file the appeal being taken only after the Supreme Court's reiteration of law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted by the Court, and that no additional grounds were pleaded for condonation of the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. 2. Whether the present appeal is barred by limitation. The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay was caused by the need to await clarification and reiteration of the law by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The petitioner contended that this Supreme Court decision settled the legal position, justifying the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent (M/s Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of limitation. The Court also noted that a similar explanation for delay had been rejected in a prior case, CEA No. 10/2020, by the same Division Bench.