Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Unitt Ii Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal along with all connected applications, holding that it was barred by limitation. The Court referred to its previous order in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted. The Court found that the present case was identical to the previously dismissed case, and no additional or fresh grounds were presented to justify the substantial delay of 1490 days. Therefore, the Court applied the reasoning from the prior judgment and concluded that the delay could not be condoned. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal and 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, against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1490 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. 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 previous one and no fresh grounds were pleaded for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1490 days in filing the appeal can be condoned in light of the explanation provided by the appellant, particularly in view of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492? Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable as it was filed after the law was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries. They contended that this Supreme Court judgment provided a fresh cause of action or a basis to re-evaluate the decision to appeal. Contentions of the Respondent (Uflex Ltd.): The respondent did not file any specific arguments on the merits of the appeal as the primary issue before the court was the condonation of delay. However, the High Court's previous order in a similar case (CEA No. 10/2020) indicated that the explanation for delay was not accepted.