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 held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu was barred by limitation, with a delay of 1109 days. The Court referred to its own previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar application for condonation of delay on similar grounds was dismissed. The reasoning was that the grounds presented for condonation were not accepted in the prior case, and therefore, they would not be accepted in the present case. The principle established is that if similar grounds for delay have been rejected by the High Court in a prior, analogous case, the subsequent appeal with identical grounds will also be dismissed on the same basis. The Court dismissed the appeal along with connected applications as being barred by limitation.

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 1109 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 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. The present appeal also pertains to the respondent, M/s JSB Aluminum SIDCO Industrial Growth Centre.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1109 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is liable to 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). Respondent's Argument: No specific argument is recorded for the respondent in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely did not contest the delay or that their position was aligned with the Court's finding on limitation.