Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Jmw INDIA PVT LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, along with all connected applications. The Court found that the appeal was barred by limitation, with a delay of 1829 days. The Court noted that the explanation provided for the delay was identical to that presented in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same court for being barred by limitation. The Court held that the reasoning applied in CEA No. 10/2020 would apply with full force to the present case. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation. No decision was made on the merits of the CESTAT order.

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 07.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was significantly delayed by 1829 days. The appellant attributed this 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. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same High Court for being barred by limitation.

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 1829 days can be condoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the need to await clarification and reiteration of law by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The petitioner contended that this decision provided a settled legal position which justified the delayed filing of the appeal. The revenue (implicitly, the respondent in the CESTAT order) did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of limitation.