Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Emcure Pharmaceuticals LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside orders from lower authorities and directed the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the respondent, M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. This direction was based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati. A batch of similar appeals, including a lead case, had previously been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal raised similar grounds to those already decided.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal was to be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment dated May 23, 2022, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The reasoning was that the instant appeal challenged a similar order to those previously considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench, and it was based on almost identical grounds. To maintain parity, the Court applied the previous decision. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical issues and grounds, which have already been decided by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, should be dismissed on the same terms to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting judgments. Any interim directions that were subsisting were vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal, challenging a CESTAT order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, is maintainable in light of a previous judgment of this Court dismissing similar appeals on identical grounds. (Question of law) The appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu) argued that the appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, challenging a CESTAT order. The appellant contended that the grounds raised in this appeal were identical to those in a batch of previously dismissed appeals. The appellant relied on the principle of parity and the previous judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated May 23, 2022. The respondent (M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) did not appear before the Court, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.