Bion Plastics vs. The Commissioner CGST

Held

The Court held that the present appeals are not maintainable. The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service, which states that a litigant who withdraws a writ petition or appeal without permission to file a fresh one is precluded from instituting a fresh proceeding on the same subject matter. This principle is based on public policy to prevent abuse of the court process and bench-hunting tactics. Since the appellant had withdrawn their earlier appeals (Central Excise Appeal Nos. 41 & 42 of 2018) without seeking or being granted liberty to file a fresh appeal, and had not challenged the subsequent order dismissing their rectification application, the present appeals against the original CESTAT order were dismissed on this ground. The Court found no justifiable reason to permit the appellant to invoke the appellate jurisdiction again. The ratio decidendi is that withdrawal of an appeal without liberty to file a fresh appeal bars subsequent appeals on the same subject matter, based on public policy, not res judicata.

Facts

The appellant, Bion Plastics, filed two appeals (CEXA No. 12 of 2019 and CEXA No. 13 of 2019) before the Uttarakhand High Court. These appeals were against an order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the CESTAT in Excise Appeal Nos. 50166 of 2016 and 51678 of 2016. Previously, the appellant had filed Central Excise Appeal Nos. 41 & 42 of 2018 against the same CESTAT order. On 13.12.2018, these earlier appeals were dismissed as withdrawn after the appellant sought permission to withdraw them to pursue a rectification application. Subsequently, the rectification application was dismissed on 06.05.2019. Instead of challenging the rectification order, the appellant filed the present appeals against the original CESTAT order of 22.09.2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeals are maintainable when the appellant had previously withdrawn earlier appeals against the same CESTAT order without seeking liberty to file fresh appeals, and subsequently pursued and had a rectification application dismissed. The petitioner argued that they had filed the present appeals challenging the original CESTAT order dated 22.09.2017. They contended that after the dismissal of their rectification application, they were entitled to challenge the original order. The petitioner did not explicitly address the principle of withdrawal of appeals without liberty to file fresh ones, nor did they cite any specific provisions or precedents in this regard. The respondent, Commissioner CGST, implicitly argued, through the Court's reasoning, that the withdrawal of the earlier appeals without liberty to file fresh ones, coupled with the subsequent dismissal of the rectification application, barred the present appeals. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior: AIR 1987 SCC 88.