Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Emcure Pharmaceuticals LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Held

The Court held that the explanation for the delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal was not acceptable. It noted that a similar explanation had been tendered by the appellant in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court for being barred by limitation. The Court observed that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that the present case had identical grounds for seeking condonation of delay as in CEA No. 10/2020, with no additional or fresh grounds pleaded. Therefore, applying the ratio of the order in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the present appeal was also barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed.

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, challenging an order dated 19.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1484 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those presented in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same High Court for being barred by limitation. The High Court noted that a similar explanation for delay had not been accepted in CEA No. 10/2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant (Revenue)? The Revenue argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to take a decision to file the appeal, which was influenced by a Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. They contended that this Supreme Court decision clarified the legal position, prompting them to file the present appeal. The Revenue also acknowledged that the grounds for condonation were similar to those in a previously dismissed case, CEA No. 10/2020. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) on the issue of delay condonation, as the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.