Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Unit Bari Brahmna Jammu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the explanation provided for the delay of 1484 days was identical to the explanation offered in CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on the grounds of limitation. The Court observed that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds pleaded for condoning the significant delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of the previous decision, the Court found no merit in the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific issue regarding the merits of the CESTAT order was decided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1484 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. The appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same High Court for being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the time taken to obtain legal advice and file the appeal after the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant relied on this Supreme Court decision to justify the delay. The revenue (appellant) contended that the delay was substantial and that the explanation offered was not sufficient. The revenue also pointed out that a similar explanation was not accepted by the Court in a previous, identical case (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed on grounds of limitation.