Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD 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. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that similar grounds for condonation of delay had been 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 and precedent established in CEA No. 10/2020, the present appeal and connected applications were also dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that when a High Court has already ruled on the issue of delay condonation on similar grounds in a prior case, subsequent appeals with identical grounds and significant delays will be dismissed on the same basis. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal and 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 March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1359 days, for which a separate application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had been addressed in a prior appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for delay condonation were identical. In that previous case, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 1359 days in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, can be condoned. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, sought condonation of the significant delay in filing the appeal, presenting grounds that were similar to those urged in a previous case (CEA No. 10/2020). Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the revenue/State as the petitioner is the revenue authority. However, the judgment notes that in a similar prior case (CEA No. 10/2020), the Division Bench of the High Court did not accept the application for condonation of delay and dismissed 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 1359 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 d
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.