Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Sidco Industrial Growth Centre Samba J And K

Held

The Court dismissed the appeal, CEA No. 39/2023, along with connected applications, as being barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that similar grounds for condonation of delay were presented in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that previous case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Therefore, the Court held that the reasoning and decision of the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020 were applicable to the present application. The ratio decidendi is that if similar grounds for delay condonation have been rejected in a prior appeal by the same High Court, subsequent appeals with identical grounds will also be dismissed on limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

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 1109 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue arose in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for condonation of delay were similar. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1109 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of delay, presenting grounds similar to those urged in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent, M/s JSB Aluminium SIDCO Industrial Growth Centre. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent did not oppose the dismissal or that their position was implicitly accepted by the Court based on precedent.