Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12671 (GAU)

M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND EXCISE, DIBRUGARH

I.A.(Civil)/2804/2026 · 2026-08-18

Michael Zothankhuma, Shamima Jahan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010165752026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2804/2026 M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, LEPETKATTA, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 786006 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND EXCISE, DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR, F LANE, PO C R BUILDING, DIBRUGARH, PIN 786003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K BORO, MR S.MITRA,A R ANSARI,MR. S MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 19.08.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST & Excise. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application for condoning the delay of 44 days in filing the cross- objection against the Final Order No.75765/2024 dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata, in Service Tax Appeal No.76059/2023. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent has filed C.Ex. Appeal No.3/2026 against the same final order. 4. Mr. K. Jain submits that the delay of 44 days should be rejected, as there is no day to day explanation made for the delay. 5. On considering the fact that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Excise and the present cross-objection filed by the applicant is against the same Final Order No.75765/2024 dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata, in Service Tax Appeal No.76059/2023, we are of the view that the delay in filing the cross-objection should be condoned. Further, the reasons given for the delay in filing the cross-objection, which has been stated in paragraph nos.5, 6 & 7 of the application, in our view, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 6. Accordingly, the delay of 44 days is condoned. 7. Registry to register the connected cross-objection and list the same. Page No.# 3/3 8. I.A.(C) is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant