Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Samrat Ferro Alloys PVT LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation provided by the appellant for the 1411-day delay, which was based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, was not accepted. The Court noted that a similar explanation had been rejected by the Division Bench of the same Court in 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, with no additional grounds for condonation. Therefore, applying the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation. No specific finding 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 at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1411 days. The appellant explained the delay by stating 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 had been rejected by the same Court 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, with no new grounds for condonation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1411 days in filing the appeal can be condoned in light of the explanation provided by the appellant, specifically referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned as the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, which they believed settled the law and justified the delayed appeal. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision as a basis for seeking condonation. Respondent's contention: The respondent (impliedly, as the appeal was dismissed) would have argued against condonation, likely highlighting the substantial delay and the lack of sufficient grounds for condonation, as evidenced by the Court's reference to a prior identical case being dismissed on limitation.