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

Held

The High Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1546 days was identical to the explanation offered in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by the Division Bench of the same Court for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel also conceded that the present case was identical to the prior one and no fresh grounds were pleaded for condonation. Therefore, the Court found that the reasoning applied in CEA No. 10/2020 would apply on all fours to the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient and distinct grounds for condonation, especially when similar explanations have been rejected in prior identical cases by the same court, will lead to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 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 reiterated and settled the law in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation for delay had not been accepted by the same Court in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to the one in CEA No. 10/2020, 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 a delay of 1546 days? 2. Whether the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to warrant condonation, particularly in light of a previous identical case dismissed on grounds of limitation? The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to the need for legal clarity, which was subsequently provided by the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. They contended that this Supreme Court judgment settled the law, justifying the decision to file the appeal after the pronouncement. The respondent did not file any specific arguments regarding the delay, as the matter was decided on the preliminary issue of limitation. The Court was to decide if the appellant's explanation for the substantial delay met the requirements for condonation, especially given the precedent set by this Court in a similar matter.