Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2804/2026 of M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CRACKER AND POLYMER LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND EXCISE, DIBRUGARH on 18 August 2026
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,
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.
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.
8. I.A.(C) is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant