Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order dated 8 March 2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh, in favour of the respondent, M/S Alstrong Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Samba, Jammu.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,506 days, and the Department explained that it decided to file the appeal only after the relevant law was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India [(2020) 3 SCC 492].

Counsel for the appellant Department fairly conceded that this was the same explanation that had already been considered and rejected by the same High Court in an earlier matter, CEA No. 10 of 2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether reliance on a subsequent Supreme Court decision that clarified the law was sufficient justification to condone a delay exceeding four years in filing an appeal against a CESTAT order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Department's decision to file the appeal was taken only after the law was authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries, and this justified the delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No independent submissions from the respondent, Alstrong Enterprises, are recorded — the appeal failed on the appellant's own concession that its case mirrored the previously rejected CEA No. 10 of 2020.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the identical explanation had already been rejected in CEA No. 10 of 2020, where the Division Bench had found no additional or fresh ground to condone a similarly large delay.
  • It held that the reasoning in the earlier order applied on all fours to the present application, and accordingly dismissed the appeal along with all connected applications as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

This is a Central Excise Act limitation-bar decision, not a GST-law ruling — it reiterates, following the Court's own earlier precedent, that a taxpayer-favourable clarification of law by the Supreme Court does not by itself excuse a multi-year delay in the Revenue's appeal filing. Assessees can draw comfort from the consistency with which such extreme delays by the tax department are being rejected by this Bench.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35G, the provision under which the appeal was filed.
  • Limitation Act, 1963 — general principles on condonation of delay applied by the Court.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K) — the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, in favour of the respondent, M/S Alstrong Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: CEA No. 110 of 2023 with CM No. 3237 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and 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.