Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1459 days was not accepted, as a similar explanation had been rejected by the same Court in a prior identical case, CEA No. 10/2020. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify condoning such a substantial delay. The reasoning was that the appellant's case was on all fours with the dismissed case, and the principle applied in that case regarding limitation would apply here. Therefore, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by limitation. The merits of the CESTAT order were not considered.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated March 8, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1459 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. However, the High Court noted that a similar explanation was not accepted 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 CEA No. 10/2020 and no new grounds were presented for condoning the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1459 days. 2. Whether the explanation provided for the delay, citing a Supreme Court judgment, is sufficient to condone the delay. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to decide on filing the appeal after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant contended that this Supreme Court judgment settled the law, justifying the subsequent appeal. The revenue or State (appellant) relied on the principle that appeals should be filed promptly once the legal position is clarified. The respondent did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds of limitation. The Court considered its own previous order in CEA No. 10/2020.