Facts of the Case

This is a Central Excise appeal dismissed on limitation, not a GST case. The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal (CEA No. 111/2023) under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated 22.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh, in favour of M/s Pigments S Pvt. Ltd., Kathua. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,484 days, the department explaining that the decision to appeal was taken only after the Supreme Court reiterated the relevant law in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1,484-day delay in filing the Central Excise 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 point of law in M/s Unicorn Industries, and fairly conceded that the facts were identical to an earlier matter, CEA No. 10/2020, in which the same explanation for a comparable delay had already been rejected.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No separate submissions are recorded for the respondent; the appellant's own concession that the case was covered against it by precedent effectively decided the outcome.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench (Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani) applied its own earlier ruling in CEA No. 10/2020, which had rejected an identical delay-condonation explanation, and found no additional or fresh ground to justify the 1,484-day delay in this case.
  • The appeal was dismissed along with all connected applications as barred by limitation, without any examination of the underlying Central Excise dispute.

Important Clarification

Like its companion order against Nanda Mint and Pine Chemicals, this ruling is confined to limitation in filing a Central Excise appeal and does not decide any GST question or engage with the merits of the tax dispute against Pigments S Pvt. Ltd. It reinforces that a later Supreme Court decision cannot, by itself, justify years of delay in filing a statutory appeal 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 (Pigments S Pvt. Ltd.) — the department's appeal was dismissed on limitation alone, with no decision on the underlying excise dispute; this is not a GST ruling.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Case No.: CEA No. 111/2023
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Date of Order: 05.06.2023

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.