Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Reckitt Benkiser INDIA PVT LTD Sidco Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the delay condonation application, and consequently the appeal, was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which dealt with a similar delay condonation application on identical grounds and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Court found that the order in CEA No. 10/2020 applied on all fours to the present case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation, along with all connected applications. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original order passed by CESTAT.

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 1511 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. 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 M/s Reckitt Benkiser India Pvt. Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1511 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons. The petitioner relied on the grounds urged in the delay condonation application. Respondent's argument: The respondent did not file any reply or present arguments on the delay condonation application. The Court noted that the respondent was not represented. Court's consideration: The Court considered the submission of the appellant's counsel that a similar issue had arisen in CEA No. 10/2020, where the delay condonation application was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same Court.