Facts of the Case

This is a Central Excise appeal, not a GST case. The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir, filed an appeal (CEA No. 78/2023) under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh, in favour of Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,488 days. The department explained the delay by stating 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.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1,488-day delay in filing the appeal could be condoned.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appellant Commissioner submitted that the delay occurred because the decision to appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court settled the relevant point of law in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India.
  • Counsel fairly conceded that the case was identical to an earlier matter, CEA No. 10/2020, where the same explanation for delay had already been rejected by the same High Court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No separate submissions are recorded for the respondent; the appellant's own counsel conceded the point was already covered against the department.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench (Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta) noted that an identical explanation for a similarly long delay had already been rejected in CEA No. 10/2020, which stood dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Since there was no additional or fresh ground to justify the huge delay of 1,488 days, the Court applied its earlier ruling and dismissed this appeal along with all connected applications as barred by limitation.
  • No findings were recorded on the substantive Central Excise dispute between the department and Nanda Mint.

Important Clarification

This order is purely about limitation in filing a Central Excise appeal — it does not decide any question of GST law, nor does it engage with the underlying tax dispute between the Commissioner and Nanda Mint on merits. It is a reminder that tax departments cannot rely on a later Supreme Court judgment to justify multi-year delays in filing statutory appeals once a similar excuse has already been rejected by the same court.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35-G (appeal to High Court).
  • Limitation Act, 1963 — principles on condonation of delay.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Respondent (Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals Ltd.) — the department's appeal was dismissed on limitation alone, without any decision on the underlying Central Excise dispute; this is not a GST ruling.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Case No.: CEA No. 78/2023
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and 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.