Facts of the Case

This appeal, though filed by the "Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu," is a Central Excise limitation matter, not a GST dispute. Filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal (CEA No. 95/2023) challenged an order dated 09.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No. E/2590/2011. The appeal was delayed by 1,486 days, with the appellant explaining that the decision to appeal was taken only after the law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492. An identical explanation for a similarly delayed appeal had already been rejected by the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1,486-day delay in filing the excise appeal could be condoned on the ground that the Supreme Court's Unicorn Industries decision only later clarified the law.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the delay should be condoned because the decision to appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court settled the law in Unicorn Industries in 2020.
  • Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, without any additional or fresh ground for condonation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record any specific appearance or arguments on behalf of the respondent, M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Ltd.; the outcome turned on the appellant's own prior litigation history.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench (Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta) noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been rejected in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Counsel for the appellant conceded there was no fresh ground distinguishing the present case.
  • The Court held that its earlier reasoning in CEA No. 10/2020 applied on all fours, and dismissed the appeal along with all connected applications as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide any question of GST law — it is a limitation-law ruling under the Central Excise Act concerning delayed departmental appeals. It reaffirms that a change or clarification in law by the Supreme Court does not, by itself, justify condoning a multi-year delay in filing a statutory appeal.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35-G (appeal to High Court).
  • Supreme Court ruling in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise); the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, following the Court's own binding precedent.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Case No.: CEA No. 95/2023
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta
Date: 29.05.2023
Parties: Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu vs. Krishi Rasayan Exports Private Ltd.

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.