Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Emcure Pharmaceuticals LTD Bari Brahmna Jammu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation offered by the appellant for the delay of 1484 days, which was based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors, was not accepted. The Court found that this explanation was identical to the one presented in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which had already been dismissed by the same Division Bench for being barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds to justify the condonation of the substantial delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of its previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the present appeal and all connected applications on the ground of limitation. No issue regarding the merits of the CESTAT order was decided.

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 March 19, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1484 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken only 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 was not accepted in a previous identical case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same Division Bench for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to the previously dismissed one, with no new grounds 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 under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if so, whether the delay of 1484 days can be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the decision to file was made after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. They contended that this provided a fresh impetus and justification for pursuing the appeal. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of limitation. The Court's decision relied on its previous ruling in CEA No. 10/2020, which had dismissed a similar appeal with a similar explanation for delay.