Facts of the Case

This is a limitation-only order under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and does not decide any Goods and Services Tax question, notwithstanding that the appellant is styled the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu (a post that administers both erstwhile Central Excise matters and present-day GST matters). The Commissioner appealed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a final order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh, in Appeal No. E/575/2009, against the respondent, Samrat Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd. The appeal before the High Court was delayed by 1411 days.

The explanation tendered by the Revenue for the delay was 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 and Ors., (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay in filing the Central Excise Appeal could be condoned on the ground that the appellant awaited a subsequent Supreme Court ruling before deciding to appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Commissioner explained the delay of 1411 days on the ground that the decision to file was taken only after the Supreme Court settled the relevant law in Unicorn Industries (2020) 3 SCC 492.
  • Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the case was identical, on facts and law, to the delay-condonation plea already rejected by the Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020.

Respondent's Arguments

No separate arguments are recorded on behalf of Samrat Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd in this order; the appeal was disposed of at the threshold on the Revenue's own concession that no fresh ground existed to distinguish it from the earlier rejected case.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been rejected in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same Court as barred by limitation.
  • Since no additional or fresh ground was pleaded to justify condoning the 1411-day delay, the Court held that its earlier ruling in CEA No. 10/2020 applied on all fours.
  • The appeal, along with all connected applications, was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

No question of Central Excise, Service Tax, or GST liability was examined on merits. The only point decided is that a delay of this magnitude cannot be condoned merely because the Revenue chose to wait for a later Supreme Court decision before filing its appeal, once that very justification has already been rejected in an identical earlier case.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35-G

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the Revenue/appellant. The Central Excise Appeal filed by the Commissioner was dismissed, along with connected applications, solely on the ground of limitation, without any adjudication on the underlying tax dispute.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu
Case No.: CEA No. 92/2023, with CM No. 3124/2023 and CM No. 3125/2023
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.