Facts of the Case

This is a short order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu dismissing an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 — a pre-GST central excise law matter, not a GST dispute, even though the appellant department is now styled "Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise." The appeal, CEA No. 96/2023, was filed by the Commissioner against an order dated 08.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT at Chandigarh in Appeal No. E/260/2016, in favour of the respondent, M/s JMV India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,464 days.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the extraordinary delay of 1,464 days in filing the Central Excise appeal ought to be condoned on the ground that the decision to appeal was taken only after the law was later settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Petitioner's Arguments (Department)

  • The delay in filing the appeal occurred because the decision to appeal was taken only after the law was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India.
  • Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded, however, that the case was identical to an earlier case, CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar explanation for delay had been rejected by the same High Court, and that no additional or fresh ground was being pleaded here.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific submissions of the respondent are recorded in this order, which was disposed of on the appellant's own concession regarding the earlier precedent.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been considered and rejected by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, by order dated 23.05.2022, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Since the appellant conceded that the present case was identical, with no fresh ground for condonation, the Court held that its earlier order in CEA No. 10/2020 applied on all fours and dismissed the present appeal, along with all connected applications, as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

This is a threshold dismissal on limitation grounds alone — the Court did not examine or record any findings on the underlying central excise dispute between the Department and the assessee. It follows an earlier co-ordinate ruling declining condonation of delay on identical facts, illustrating that reliance on a later Supreme Court clarification of the law is not, by itself, sufficient justification for a multi-year delay in departmental appeals. The case has no bearing on GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Section 35G, Central Excise Act, 1944 — Appeal to High Court
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — Condonation of delay (as applied to the appeal)

Decision – In Favour of Respondent (Assessee)

The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed as barred by limitation, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying central excise dispute; the result favoured the respondent-assessee only on the threshold limitation issue.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: CEA No. 96/2023 (CM No. 3158/2023)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
  • Date of Order: 29 May 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.