Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Gaurav Agro Chem Industries Sicop Kathua
Held
The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for condonation of delay were identical. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning from the Division Bench's order in CEA No. 10/2020 to the present application, the Court found no reason to deviate. Therefore, the appeal and connected applications were dismissed as being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already decided a similar matter on limitation, subsequent appeals with identical grounds for delay will be dismissed on the same basis.
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 filed with a delay of 1103 days, for which a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen 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 1103 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 similar grounds for delay had been presented 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 Gaurav Agro Chem Industries). However, the appellant's counsel's submission implies that the respondent would likely oppose the condonation of delay, given the High Court's prior decision in a similar matter.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 03.04.2023
The appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, is delayed by 1103 days. Hence, a separate application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the similar issue had arisen in an appeal bearing CEA No. 10/2020, wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. In view of the above, what has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 23
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.