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

Held

The Court held that the explanation provided for the delay of 1488 days was not acceptable. It noted that a similar explanation had been tendered by the appellant in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court for being barred by limitation. The Court further observed that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and no additional grounds were pleaded for condoning the substantial delay. Therefore, applying the ratio of the decision in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the appeal was barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, the appellant, 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 only after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those presented 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 1488 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the clarification of law by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, which settled the legal position and prompted the decision to file the appeal. The appellant's counsel also admitted that the grounds for condonation were identical to those in CEA No. 10/2020. The revenue (appellant) relied on the Supreme Court's decision to justify the delay. The respondent (M/s Reckitt Benekiser India Pvt Ltd) did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation.