Facts of the Case

This is a Central Excise Act appeal, decided on limitation grounds, and does not touch GST law. The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a CESTAT Chandigarh order dated 9 March 2018 in favour of the respondent, M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. The appeal was delayed by 1720 days, and the department's explanation was that the decision to appeal was taken only after the law was 'reiterated and settled' by the Supreme Court in Union Industries vs Union of India (2020). The appellant's own counsel candidly conceded that an identical explanation had already been rejected by the same High Court in an earlier case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as time-barred, and that there was no additional or fresh ground to justify condonation this time.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1720-day delay in filing the Central Excise appeal could be condoned on the ground that the department awaited clarity from a later Supreme Court ruling.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The decision to file the appeal was taken only after the law was settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 492, justifying the delay.

Respondent's Arguments

No specific counter-arguments are recorded; the appellant's own counsel effectively conceded the point by acknowledging the case was identical to the already-dismissed CEA No.10/2020.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been considered and rejected by the same Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Since the appellant's own counsel fairly conceded there was no additional or fresh ground distinguishing the present case, the Court held that its earlier order in CEA No. 10/2020 applied on all fours.
  • The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

This is a short, precedent-following order on limitation under the Central Excise Act — it establishes no new legal principle and has no bearing on GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35-G

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the appellant-Commissioner; the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, following the Court's own earlier ruling on identical facts. Not a GST ruling.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Case No.: CEA No. 127/2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti
Date of Order: 21 August 2022

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.