Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir, filed this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh, in a matter involving Uflex Ltd, Bari Brahmana, Jammu. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,484 days. The department's explanation for the delay was that it decided to file the appeal only after the law on the point was reiterated and settled by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the department's explanation for the 1,484-day delay — waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling in Unicorn Industries — was sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • (Appellant-department) 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, (2020) 3 SCC 492, justifying the long delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific counter-arguments are recorded in this brief order; the outcome turned on the department's own concession, through its counsel, that the facts were identical to an earlier case where the same explanation had already been rejected.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that an identical explanation for delay had already been rejected by the same High Court in CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation by a Division Bench order dated 23.05.2022.
  • Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the present case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, with no additional or fresh ground to justify condonation of the huge delay.
  • Applying the reasoning of CEA No. 10/2020 on all fours, the Court dismissed this appeal, along with all connected applications, as barred by limitation.
  • No merits of the underlying Central Excise dispute involving Uflex Ltd were examined — the appeal failed purely on the threshold limitation point.

Important Clarification

This is a pre-GST Central Excise matter — the dispute concerns a CESTAT order and Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, not the GST law. The 'Central GST' in the department's title reflects the merged post-GST nomenclature of the department (which now administers both GST and legacy Central Excise/Service Tax matters), but the actual dispute predates and is unrelated to GST. The order's only real lesson is procedural: a department cannot condone lengthy delays in filing appeals merely by waiting for a favourable Supreme Court precedent to emerge, particularly once a coordinate bench has already rejected that very explanation in an identical matter.

Sections Involved

  • Section 35-G, Central Excise Act, 1944 — appeal to High Court from CESTAT orders.
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — condonation of delay (as applied through the Central Excise Act's appeal framework).

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the respondent (Uflex Ltd) — the department's appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation, without any decision on the underlying Central Excise dispute's merits.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
  • Case No.: CEA No. 90 of 2023 (with CM Nos. 2917/2023 and 2918/2023)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
  • Date of Order: 22 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.