Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Berger Paints INDIA LTD ,Sidco Igc Samba
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1342 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the appellant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. 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 previous Division Bench order to the present case, the Court found that the application for condonation of delay was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation, along with connected applications.
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 1342 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, 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 is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1342 days. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the limitation provisions under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the principles governing condonation of delay. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: The appellant sought condonation of the 1342-day delay in filing the appeal, presenting grounds similar to those urged in a previous matter. Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue/state regarding the grounds for condonation of delay, other than the appellant's counsel fairly submitting the situation.
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 1342 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
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.