Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Ritzy Polymers Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the delay of 1511 days in filing the appeal was not condonable. The Court's reasoning was based on a prior decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that case, the Court had dismissed a similar appeal filed with a delay on similar grounds. The Court found that the present appeal was on 'all fours' with the previous one. Therefore, applying the ratio decidendi from CEA No. 10/2020, the Court concluded that the delay could not be excused. The appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. No specific operative directions were issued beyond 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 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1511 days, and a separate application was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that previous case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal, CEA No. 12/2023, was filed by the Commissioner against M/s Ritzy Polymers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1511 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should be condoned. The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and that the appeal raised an important issue of law. They relied on the principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The respondent (M/s Ritzy Polymers) did not appear to argue the case. However, the Court noted that in a similar case, CEA No. 10/2020, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay, indicating that the Court's stance on condoning such delays, especially when no compelling reasons are presented, is strict. The Court's decision in the prior case served as a precedent for the present matter.