Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Jai Bharat Crop Chemical PVT LTD Sidco Indsutrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K
Held
The Court held that the present appeal was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that a similar issue regarding condonation of delay had been decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020. In that previous case, the Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, despite the appellant seeking condonation on similar grounds. Applying the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, the Court found that the delay in the present appeal could not be condoned. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar appeal with similar grounds for delay condonation has been dismissed as time-barred by a Division Bench, subsequent appeals with identical circumstances will also be dismissed on the same ground. 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 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1487 days, and the appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed against Jai Bharat Crop Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 1487 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, relying on grounds that were presented in a previous, similar appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Respondent's Argument: The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Court noted that in a prior, similar case (CEA No. 10/2020), the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 24.04.2023
The appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, is delayed by 1487 days. Hence, a separate application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the similar issue had arisen in an appeal bearing CEA No. 10/2020, wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. In view of the above, what has said by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 23.05.2
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.