Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jindal Drugs LTD Epip Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The reasoning was that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1546 days, which was based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors., had already been considered and rejected by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that the present case was identical to the one in CEA No. 10/2020 and that no additional grounds were pleaded for condoning the delay. Therefore, the principle applied in the previous case, which dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation, was held to apply on all fours to the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient justification and in the face of prior judicial precedent on similar explanations, will lead to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications.

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, against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1546 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. 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, 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, considering the delay of 1546 days and the explanation provided by the appellant? The 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 they contended reiterated and settled the law. They submitted that this Supreme Court decision provided the impetus to file the appeal. The revenue or State's contentions were that the delay was substantial and that the explanation offered, relying on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment, was insufficient to justify the condonation of such a prolonged delay, especially in light of previous High Court decisions on similar grounds.