Facts of the Case

This is a Central Excise Act matter, not a GST case, even though the appellant is described as the "Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu" (a department that today also administers GST but was pursuing an old Central Excise dispute here). The Commissioner filed Central Excise Appeal (CEA) No. 86/2023 under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh in Appeal No. E/972/2008, in a dispute involving the respondent, M/s Uflex Ltd, Unit II, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

The appeal itself was filed more than four years after the CESTAT order, resulting in a delay of 1490 days. The Revenue's explanation was that it decided to file the appeal only after the law was "reiterated and settled" by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492. The High Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been rejected by it in a connected matter, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation by a Division Bench order dated 23.05.2022. Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020 and that no additional or fresh ground was being pleaded to justify the delay.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay of 1490 days in filing the Central Excise appeal could be condoned on the ground that the Revenue awaited a subsequent Supreme Court ruling before deciding to appeal.
  2. Whether the reasoning already applied by the Division Bench in the connected CEA No. 10/2020 (rejecting an identical explanation) governed the present appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Revenue argued that the decision to file the appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court settled the relevant legal position in Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492, justifying the long delay in filing.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record any specific submissions from the respondent, Uflex Ltd; the appellant's own counsel effectively conceded that the case was on all fours with the earlier dismissed appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), leaving little for the respondent to contest at this threshold stage.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the explanation for the 1490-day delay was identical to the one already rejected in CEA No. 10/2020, dismissed by the Division Bench as barred by limitation on 23.05.2022.
  • Applying its own reasoning from that earlier order "on all fours," the Court dismissed the present appeal, along with connected applications CM No. 2900/2023 and CM No. 2901/2023, as barred by limitation.
  • The Court did not examine or record any findings on the underlying Central Excise dispute between the parties.

Important Clarification

This order is purely about limitation in filing a departmental appeal — it says nothing about GST law, input tax credit, or any GST compliance issue. Businesses should note that courts are consistently reluctant to condone multi-year delays in tax appeals merely because a later Supreme Court decision clarified the law; timely appeals remain essential regardless of which department or which tax statute is involved.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35-G (Appeal to High Court)

Decision – In Favour of

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned CESTAT order in favour of the respondent, Uflex Ltd, was left undisturbed. The dismissal was purely on the ground of limitation; the Court did not go into the merits of the underlying Central Excise dispute.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: CEA No. 86/2023 with CM No. 2900/2023 and CM No. 2901/2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
  • Date of Order: 22.05.2023

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.