Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S R B Jodhamal And Co PVT LTD Tope Sherkhania Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant had 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. Applying the ratio decidendi from the Division Bench's order in CEA No. 10/2020, which was found to be on all fours with the present case, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent. Consequently, the delay condonation application was not accepted, and the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. All connected applications were also dismissed along with the appeal.

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 1549 days, and a separate application was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel conceded that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant had 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 therefore considered in light of that precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1549 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the grounds urged by the appellant. 2. Whether the principles laid down by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, which dismissed a similar appeal due to limitation, apply to the present case. The appellant argued that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and that the issue involved was of significant importance. They relied on the general principle that courts should be liberal in condoning delays when substantial justice is at stake. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The revenue, as the appellant, sought condonation of delay, relying on the grounds presented in their application. The respondent's position was not explicitly detailed in the judgment regarding the delay.