Facts of the Case

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 an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT, Chandigarh in Appeal No. E/972/2008, concerning M/s Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Ltd. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1488 days, explained on the ground that the decision to appeal was taken only after the law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. UOI (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the 1488-day delay in filing the Central Excise appeal could be condoned.
  2. Whether the explanation of awaiting a later Supreme Court decision justified the delay.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The delay occurred because the appellant decided to file the appeal only after the legal position was settled by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries.
  • Counsel fairly conceded the case was identical to CEA No.10/2020, in which a similar explanation had already been rejected, and that there was no additional or fresh ground to justify condonation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • None recorded from the respondent (Dujodwala Resins), as the appeal was disposed of on the appellant's own concession regarding the earlier precedent.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been rejected in its earlier Division Bench order in CEA No.10/2020, and that counsel for the appellant fairly conceded there was no fresh ground to distinguish the present case.
  • Applying that precedent, the Court dismissed the appeal, along with all connected applications, as barred by limitation.

Important Clarification

This is a pre-GST Central Excise matter, not a GST ruling — the underlying dispute (CESTAT order dated 2018) predates the GST regime, and only the department's name ("Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate") reflects post-2017 administrative reorganisation. The order's only lesson is procedural: delay explanations tied to "waiting for a Supreme Court decision" have been consistently rejected by this Court when no fresh ground is shown.

Sections Involved

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

Decision – In Favour of

Respondent (M/s Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Ltd.) — Revenue's appeal dismissed as time-barred; no merits examined.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case: CEA No.89/2023 with CM Nos.2915/2023 and 2916/2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
  • Date: 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.