Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant had sought condonation of a significant delay of 1413 days. Crucially, the Court referred to a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which dealt with a similar issue and similar grounds for condonation of delay. In that prior case, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning and precedent, the present Court found no reason to deviate from the earlier ruling. Therefore, the appeal and connected applications were dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. The operative direction was the dismissal of 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 delayed by 1413 days, and a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the appellant also sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. In that previous case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed against Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Ltd.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1413 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, arguing that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons. They relied on the fact that similar issues had arisen in previous matters and sought to distinguish the present case or argue for leniency. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Ltd., did not file any arguments as recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's decision was influenced by a previous Division Bench ruling in a similar case (CEA No. 10/2020) where the delay was not condoned.