Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hari Narain Industries Igc Samba Jammu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1412 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries, was identical to the explanation previously rejected by the same Court in CEA No. 10/2020. The appellant's counsel also conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds presented in the current case. Therefore, applying the same reasoning as in the prior dismissed case, the Court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay. The appeal and all connected applications were dismissed on the grounds of 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 March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1412 days. The appellant explained the delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken 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 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 previous one 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 1412 days and the explanation provided by the appellant. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the decision to file was taken after the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, which reiterated and settled the law. They contended that this Supreme Court decision provided a fresh impetus to pursue the appeal. Respondent/Revenue: No arguments recorded for the respondent.