Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Sidco Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. 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 to the present case, the Court found that the grounds urged for condonation of delay were not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal and connected applications were dismissed as being barred by limitation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original dispute before CESTAT.

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 conceded that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the appellant sought condonation of delay on similar grounds. However, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. The present appeal was filed against M/s JSB Aluminium SIDCO IGC Samba.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise is barred by limitation under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that the delay was attributable to administrative reasons and that the issue involved was of significant importance. They relied on the general principle that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities of limitation, especially when the merits of the case are in favor of the revenue. Respondent's Argument: The respondent did not file any specific argument on the delay as the matter was decided based on the petitioner's own submission regarding a similar prior case. However, implicitly, the respondent would have argued that the delay is excessive and the petitioner has not made out a case for condonation, especially in light of the High Court's previous decision in a similar matter.