Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Unit Iii Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1490 days. The Court noted that a similar issue regarding delay condonation on similar grounds had been considered in CEA No. 10/2020, where a Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the ratio of that decision to the present case, the Court found that the delay condonation application was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal and all connected applications. No issues were expressly 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 an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1490 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 prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. However, that appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court as being barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed against Uflex Ltd. Unit III.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1490 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is liable to be condoned? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar issues had arisen in previous cases. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the delay condonation. However, the court's decision implies the revenue's request for condonation was not accepted.