Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hawco Petrofer LLP Centre Sicop Govindsar Kathua

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority, directing a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, M/s Hawco Petrofer LLP Centre SICOP Govindsar Kathua (Respondent). 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 filed by the Commissioner had previously been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was filed with a delay, and an application for condonation of delay was also considered.

Held

The High Court dismissed the present appeal. The Court observed that the instant appeal challenged an order similar to those in a batch of previous appeals that had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The grounds raised in the present appeal were also noted to be almost identical to those already dealt with in the previous judgment. Therefore, to maintain parity and consistency, the Court dismissed this appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. Any interim directions that were subsisting were also vacated. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical grounds and subject matter as previously dismissed appeals will also be dismissed to maintain judicial discipline and consistency.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal, filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against the CESTAT's order directing refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, is maintainable on similar grounds as previously dismissed appeals. (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner (Commissioner) argued that the appeal should be considered on its merits, despite the previous dismissal of similar appeals. Respondent's contention: The Respondent (assessee) likely supported the CESTAT's order and the dismissal of previous similar appeals, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in 'M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati'. The judgment does not explicitly record the Respondent's arguments for this specific appeal, but implies reliance on the precedent established by the dismissal of earlier appeals.