Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Pbi Metals LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation and dismissed it along with connected applications. The Court noted that the explanation tendered by the appellant for the delay of 1511 days was identical to the explanation provided in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same court for being barred by limitation. The Court found that there were no additional or fresh grounds pleaded by the appellant to justify the substantial delay. Therefore, applying the same logic as in the previous case, the Court concluded that the delay could not be condoned. 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 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was delayed by 1511 days. The appellant's explanation for the delay was that a decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by the same court for being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1511 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 492? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned as the decision to file the appeal was taken 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 impetus or clarification that warranted the filing of the present appeal. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument for the revenue/State on the merits of the delay condonation. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue/State did not present any additional or fresh grounds to justify the significant delay, beyond what was presented in the prior dismissed case.