Facts of the Case

This order is not about GST — it concerns an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944, dismissed purely on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh, in favour of the respondent, M/s Ritzy Polymers. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1511 days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that an identical delay-condonation issue, on similar grounds, had already been considered and rejected by a Division Bench of the same High Court in CEA No.10/2020, where the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The present appeal was decided on 24.04.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1511-day delay in filing the excise appeal could be condoned.
  2. Whether the reasoning of the Court's earlier decision in CEA No.10/2020 (dated 23.05.2022), rejecting condonation on similar facts, applied on all fours to the present case.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) sought condonation of the 1511-day delay in filing the appeal against the CESTAT order, though counsel fairly acknowledged the similarity to the previously rejected case.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not record any separate submissions on behalf of the respondent, M/s Ritzy Polymers, as the appeal was disposed of on the appellant's own concession regarding the earlier precedent.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that what was said by the Division Bench in its order dated 23.05.2022 in CEA No.10/2020 applied on all fours to the delay-condonation application in this case.
  • Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, along with all connected applications, without any examination of the substantive excise dispute.

Important Clarification

This is a purely limitation-based dismissal that mirrors an earlier ruling by the same court on materially identical facts; it decides nothing about the underlying excise liability and has no bearing on GST law. It is a reminder that government departments, too, must file statutory appeals within time, and courts will not excuse very long, unexplained delays even for revenue authorities.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35G (appeal to High Court) and law of limitation for such appeals
  • No provision of the CGST/SGST Act was involved.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Respondent, M/s Ritzy Polymers — the Revenue's appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, without any finding on the merits of the excise dispute.

Case Details

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu | CEA No.54/2023 (referred to in the order's operative portion as CEA No.12/2023) | Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal | Date: 24.04.2023.

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.