Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Masters INDIA Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

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 1352 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that the grounds for condonation of delay were similar to those presented in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. In that prior case, a Division Bench of the same High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning and precedent, the Court found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision. Therefore, the appeal and any connected applications were dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case as the preliminary issue of limitation was decisive.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & 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 filed with a delay of 1352 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 identical. In that prior case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The current appeal was also dismissed on the same grounds.

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 1352 days. 2. Whether the grounds for condonation of delay presented by the appellant are sufficient to overcome the significant delay. Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellant, through its counsel, fairly submitted that the issue and grounds for condonation of delay were similar to those in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020. They implicitly sought condonation of the 1352-day delay to have the merits of the appeal considered. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the court's decision indicates that the revenue's application for condonation of delay was not accepted.