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 explanation provided for the delay of 1488 days in filing the appeal was not acceptable. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that the grounds for condonation of delay were identical to those in CEA No. 10/2020, which had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court for being barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court found that the reasoning and decision in CEA No. 10/2020 would apply directly to the present case. The ratio decidendi is that a substantial delay in filing an appeal, without sufficient justification, will lead to its dismissal, especially when similar grounds for condonation have been previously rejected by the same court. The Court dismissed the appeal and all connected applications as being barred by limitation.

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 significantly delayed by 1488 days. The appellant attributed this delay to a decision to file the appeal only after the Supreme Court's reiteration of the law in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors. The appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condoning the delay were identical to those presented in a previous, similar case (CEA No. 10/2020) which was dismissed by the same High Court for being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1488 days in filing the appeal can be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant, and if the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020 applies. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by the need to await clarification and reiteration of the law by the Supreme Court in the M/s Unicorn Industries case, suggesting that the decision to appeal was taken only after the legal position became settled. The revenue (appellant) contended that the explanation for the delay was insufficient and that the case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar plea for condonation of delay was rejected by the High Court. The revenue did not present any additional grounds for condonation.