Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Alstrong Enterprises Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that a similar issue concerning condonation of delay on similar grounds had been addressed in CEA No. 10/2020, where the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the present appeal, CEA No. 12/2023, was also barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a previous appeal with identical grounds for delay condonation was dismissed as time-barred, subsequent appeals with similar circumstances will also be dismissed on the same grounds. No specific issue was left undecided.

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 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1488 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had been raised in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for delay condonation were similar. In that prior 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 of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1488 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is liable to be condoned. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, urging similar grounds as in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner beyond referencing the previous case. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any arguments made by the revenue.