Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Dujodwala Resins And Terpenes Limited Nariman Point Mumbai Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1488 days was identical to the one presented in CEA No. 10/2020, where a Division Bench of the same Court had dismissed the appeal for being barred by limitation. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to justify condoning such a substantial delay. Therefore, applying the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court dismissed the present appeal along with all connected applications. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without compelling new grounds or circumstances, will lead to dismissal, especially when similar explanations have been rejected previously by the same court.

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, Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1488 days. The appellant explained that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. However, the 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 presented 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 1488 days. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned because the decision to file was taken after the Supreme Court settled the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. They contended that this subsequent clarification justified the delayed appeal. Revenue's Argument: The revenue (appellant in this case) did not present any specific arguments beyond the explanation for the delay. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the case was identical to a previous one (CEA No. 10/2020) where a similar explanation for delay was not accepted, and no additional grounds were pleaded.