2023 (9) TMI 13 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 1488 days in filing appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The similar issue had arisen in an appeal COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, (J K) JAMMU VERSUS M/S NARBADA INDUSTRIES 2022 (5) TMI 1361 - JAMMU KASHMIR HIGH COURT , wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court has also considered the matter in COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (J AND K) VERSUS M/S. SARASWATI AGRO CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 2023 (7) TMI 542 - SC ORDER and dismissed the SLP. Thus appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the applicability of past decisions in light of subsequent rulings.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a final order was delayed by 1488 days. A separate application seeking condonation of delay was filed. The counsel submitted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal, but the Division Bench did not accept the application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court also dismissed a Special Leave Petition related to the matter. The High Court observed that the decision in a previous case had attained finality and was binding on the parties, emphasizing the need to provide quietus to litigation at some stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed along with connected applications due to being barred by limitation.

Applicability of Past Decisions:
The High Court emphasized that past decisions that had attained finality should not be affected by subsequent rulings. It was noted that allowing actions based on later decisions would lead to endless litigation, contrary to public policy. The Court found a reference order unnecessary in light of the discussions on finality of decisions. The decision in a previous case was upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming that the same principles applied to the current application. Therefore, the appeal and connected applications were dismissed as they were barred by limitation.