Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S V M Timber Industries Sicop Industrial Estate Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1496 days was not accepted, as it was identical to the explanation previously rejected by the same Court in CEA No. 10/2020. The Court found that there were no additional or fresh grounds presented to justify condoning such a substantial delay. Therefore, the principle applied in the earlier case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar delay was not condoned, applied with full force to the present appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications on the grounds of 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, 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 1496 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 M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation was not accepted by the same Court 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 CEA No. 10/2020 and lacked any fresh grounds 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 1496 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 appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, which clarified the legal position. They contended that this clarification necessitated a review and filing of the appeal. The respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court had to decide if the explanation for the delay was sufficient to overcome the statutory limitation period, especially in light of previous similar dismissals.