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 22.03.2018 passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh, concerning M/S Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Kathua. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,484 days, explained on the ground that the department decided to appeal only after the Supreme Court reiterated and settled the relevant law in M/s Unicorn Industries v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492 — the identical explanation, and identical delay period, as in a companion appeal (CEA No. 90 of 2023) against Uflex Ltd. decided a week earlier by the same Bench.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the department's identical delay-condonation explanation, already rejected in the companion Uflex Ltd. matter and in the earlier CEA No. 10/2020, should be accepted here.

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 1,484-day delay.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No specific counter-arguments are recorded; learned counsel for the appellant himself conceded the case was identical to CEA No. 10/2020, where the same explanation had already been rejected, with no additional or fresh ground raised here.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court applied its reasoning in the earlier order dated 23.05.2022 in CEA No. 10/2020 — which had already rejected an identical explanation for delay — on all fours to this case.
  • The appeal, along with all connected applications, was dismissed as barred by limitation, without any examination of the underlying Central Excise dispute involving M/S Pigments Pvt. Ltd.

Important Clarification

Like its companion order against Uflex Ltd. decided a week earlier, this is a pre-GST Central Excise limitation matter, not a GST-law decision — the 'Central GST' in the department's title reflects only the merged post-GST departmental nomenclature. The order simply confirms, for a second taxpayer, that the department cannot justify a 1,484-day delay in filing a Section 35-G appeal by pointing to a later Supreme Court precedent, once that very explanation has already been rejected by the same High Court.

Sections Involved

  • Section 35-G, Central Excise Act, 1944 — appeal to High Court from CESTAT orders.
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — condonation of delay.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the respondent (M/S Pigments Pvt. Ltd.) — the department's appeal was dismissed as time-barred, 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. 98 of 2023 (with CM Nos. 3164/2023 and 3165/2023)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. 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.