Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hawco Petrofer LLP Centre Sicop Govindsar Kathua

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court found that the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay of 1272 days was identical to the one previously rejected by the same Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded that there were no additional or fresh grounds pleaded to justify the condonation of such a substantial delay. Therefore, applying the same reasoning as in the previous case, the Court dismissed the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a delay of this magnitude, without sufficient and distinct grounds for condonation, will lead to the dismissal of the appeal, especially when similar pleas have been rejected previously. The operative direction was the dismissal of 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, challenging an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1272 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 High 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 one in CEA No. 10/2020, with no new grounds for condoning the significant delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the delay of 1272 days. 2. Whether the explanation provided by the appellant for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to warrant condonation. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by the time taken to decide on filing the appeal after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492, which they believed settled the law. The revenue (appellant) relied on this Supreme Court judgment to justify the delay. The respondent did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.