Facts of the Case

Like several other appeals filed by the same department around this time, this is a Central Excise Act case, not a GST dispute. The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, filed CEA No. 109/2023 under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a CESTAT, Chandigarh order dated 22.03.2018 in Appeal No. E/2506/2010, involving the respondent, M/S J&K Pigments Pvt. Ltd, Kathua.

The appeal was filed 1484 days late. The explanation offered was identical to that in a batch of connected matters — that the Revenue decided to appeal only after the Supreme Court settled the relevant legal position in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492. The Court recorded that the same explanation had already been rejected in CEA No. 10/2020, dismissed by the Division Bench as time-barred on 23.05.2022, and that the appellant's counsel fairly conceded the present case was identical, with no fresh ground for condonation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1484-day delay in filing the appeal against the CESTAT order could be condoned based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
  2. Whether the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020, rejecting an identical delay-condonation explanation, applied on all fours to this appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Revenue submitted that the appeal was delayed because the decision to file it was taken only after the law was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific arguments from the respondent, J&K Pigments Pvt. Ltd, are recorded in the order; the appellant's counsel himself conceded the case was identical to the earlier dismissed appeal, leaving the threshold point effectively unopposed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the explanation for delay mirrored the one already rejected in CEA No. 10/2020.
  • Applying the reasoning of that earlier Division Bench order, the Court dismissed the appeal along with connected application CM No. 3235/2023 as barred by limitation.
  • No findings were recorded on the merits of the underlying excise dispute.

Important Clarification

This order turns entirely on limitation in a Central Excise appeal and has no bearing on GST law or GST compliance. It reinforces that a subsequent favourable Supreme Court ruling does not, by itself, excuse years of delay in filing a tax appeal.

Sections Involved

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

Decision – In Favour of

The appeal was dismissed and the CESTAT order stood undisturbed in favour of the respondent, J&K Pigments Pvt. Ltd, purely on the ground of limitation, without any decision on the merits of the excise dispute.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: CEA No. 109/2023 with CM No. 3235/2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
  • Date of Order: 29.05.2023

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.