Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hari Narain Industries Igc Samba Jammu

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It 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, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning from the previous judgment, the Court found that the current appeal and its connected applications were also barred by limitation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original CESTAT order was decided.

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 1412 days, and an 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 1412 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's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State in this instance. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's application for condonation of delay was not accepted.