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

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, along with all connected applications, on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The Court found that the explanation provided for the delay of 1484 days, which was based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, was not sufficient. The Court referred to its own prior decision in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the present case was identical to the previously decided case, and therefore, the same reasoning and outcome would apply. The ratio decidendi is that a significant delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient cause, will lead to dismissal, and reliance on a subsequent clarifying judgment does not automatically justify a prolonged delay, especially when a prior identical appeal was dismissed on limitation.

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 22.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1484 days. The appellant attributed the delay to a decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the 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 the present case had no additional grounds for condonation of the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay of 1484 days can be condoned based on the explanation provided by the appellant. The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay in filing the appeal was justified as it was filed after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492, which they contended reiterated and settled the law applicable to the case. They sought condonation of the 1484-day delay. The respondent (M/s J&K Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of limitation. The Court, however, relied on its previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, which involved a similar explanation for delay and was dismissed.