Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jmw INDIA PVT LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1464 days was identical to the explanation previously rejected by the same Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds to justify the condonation of the significant delay. Therefore, applying the same reasoning as in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay. The ratio decidendi is that a repeated, unsubstantiated delay, even with reference to a Supreme Court judgment, will not be condoned if similar applications have been dismissed previously on the same grounds. The appeal and all connected applications were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

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 08.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1464 days. The appellant explained this delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court reiterated and settled the law 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 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 one in CEA No. 10/2020, with no new grounds presented for condoning the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1464 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant (revenue), in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner (revenue) argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to decide on filing the appeal after the law was clarified by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries. They contended that this clarification provided a settled legal position justifying the subsequent appeal. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (M/s JMV India Pvt. Ltd) did not present arguments in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely relied on the precedent set by the dismissal of CEA No. 10/2020 due to limitation.