Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Nanda Mint And Pine Chemicals 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 offered by the appellant for the delay of 1488 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 presented in the current appeal to justify condoning the substantial delay. Therefore, following the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the delay could not be condoned. The appeal, along with all connected applications, was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. No decision was made on the merits of the CESTAT order.

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, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1488 days. The appellant explained this 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 had been rejected 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 had no additional grounds for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1488 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to decide on filing the appeal after the law was settled by the Supreme Court in the Unicorn Industries case. They contended that this provided sufficient grounds for condoning the significant delay. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd) did not present any arguments in the judgment. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's submission and the precedent set in a prior case.