The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Sks Ispat And Power LTD.

Held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for decision in the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reasoning was that the CESTAT had merely followed an earlier decision which affirmed the very same impugned order. The Court also noted that this earlier order, which formed the basis of the CESTAT's decision, had itself been affirmed by the High Court in a separate proceeding (Tax Case No. 137 of 2017). Therefore, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the CESTAT's order. The ratio decidendi is that if a tribunal's order is based on a prior decision that has been affirmed by the High Court, and no new substantial question of law is presented, the appeal against the tribunal's order is likely to be dismissed in limine. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal in limine.

Facts

The Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, CGST & Central Excise, Raipur (Appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had affirmed a prior order. The dispute pertains to M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. (Respondent). The High Court noted that the CESTAT's decision was based on an earlier ruling which had affirmed the very same impugned order. Furthermore, the High Court had itself affirmed the earlier order, which was the basis for the CESTAT's decision, in a separate case (Tax Case No. 137 of 2017) on 11.09.2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for decision in the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, given that the CESTAT has merely followed an earlier decision affirming the impugned order? Petitioner's Argument: The Appellant contended that the CESTAT's order was flawed and that a substantial question of law did arise. However, the judgment does not elaborate on the specific grounds of appeal or the arguments presented by the Appellant beyond the general assertion that an appeal under Section 35-G was maintainable. Respondent's Argument: No arguments were recorded for the Respondent as none appeared. The judgment implies that the Respondent's position was likely aligned with the CESTAT's prior decision.