Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, filed Central Excise Appeal No. 91 of 2023 under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, challenging an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No. E/972/2008, in favour of M/s Hawco Petrofer LLP.

The appeal was delayed by 1,272 days. The department explained the delay by stating that the decision to file the appeal was taken 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.

An identical explanation for delay had already been considered and rejected by the same High Court in CEA No. 10 of 2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation; the department's counsel in this case fairly conceded that the facts were identical and no additional ground existed to justify condonation of the 1,272-day delay.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1,272-day delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the ground that the department awaited a subsequent Supreme Court ruling clarifying the law before deciding to appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appellant's counsel fairly conceded that the case was identical to CEA No. 10 of 2020, in which the same delay-condonation explanation had already been rejected, and that no fresh or additional ground existed to seek condonation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • M/s Hawco Petrofer LLP appeared through counsel; the order does not record separate substantive arguments beyond the Court's own reliance on its earlier ruling on an identical limitation point.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the explanation tendered for the 1,272-day delay was identical to the explanation it had already rejected in CEA No. 10 of 2020, which had been dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Applying that precedent on all fours, it dismissed the present appeal, along with all connected applications, as barred by limitation, without going into the merits of the underlying CESTAT order.

Important Clarification

This ruling turns purely on limitation — the department's excessive delay in filing the appeal — and does not touch the merits of the underlying Central Excise dispute or any GST question. 'GST' appears only in the appellant department's post-2017 name.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35-G (appeal to High Court from CESTAT order)
  • Limitation Act, 1963 – principles governing condonation of delay

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the appellant (the Commissioner) — the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, the 1,272-day delay being found unjustified on facts identical to an earlier rejected case.

Case Details

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. CEA No. 91/2023 with CM Nos. 3085/2023 and 3086/2023 (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu v. M/S Hawco Petrofer LLP). Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta. Order dated 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.