Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Berger Paints INDIA LTD, Sidco Igc Samba
Held
The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1334 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that similar grounds for condonation of delay had been urged in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on the grounds of limitation. Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the present application for condonation of delay and the accompanying appeal were also barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal and all connected applications were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has previously dismissed an appeal on grounds of limitation with similar arguments, subsequent appeals with identical grounds and significant delay will also be dismissed on the same basis.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1334 days, and the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay. 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, but the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed against M/s Berger Paints India Ltd.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, against the order of CESTAT Chandigarh, is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1334 days. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the provisions governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise): Argued for condonation of delay, presenting grounds similar to those in a previous case (CEA No. 10/2020). Respondent (M/s Berger Paints India Ltd.): No specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the delay or the merits of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 13.03.2023
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 1334 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 date
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.