Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Unit Ii 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 all connected applications. The reasoning was based on the fact that the explanation for the delay, which was identical to that provided in CEA No. 10/2020, had already been rejected by a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify condoning the significant delay of 1484 days. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot seek condonation of delay based on a legal precedent if a similar explanation has already been rejected by the same court in an identical matter. 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, challenging an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1484 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. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted by the High Court, and that no additional grounds were pleaded for condoning the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal can be condoned based on 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 only after the law was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in the M/s Unicorn Industries case, implying that this provided a fresh cause of action or justification for the delayed appeal. Respondent's Argument: The respondent did not file any reply or present arguments. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation for delay was not accepted in a previous identical case (CEA No. 10/2020) decided by the same Court.