Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Crop Chemicals INDIA LTD Igc Samba J And K
Facts
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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 the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to M/s Crop Chemicals India Ltd (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, including the lead case CEA No. 10/2022, had previously been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022, on identical grounds. The present appeal was also filed on similar grounds.
Held
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu. The Court noted that the present appeal was filed against an order similar to those in a batch of previous appeals that had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court on May 23, 2022. The grounds raised in the instant appeal were also found to be almost identical to those already dealt with in the previous judgment. Therefore, to maintain parity, the Court dismissed the present appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment dated May 23, 2022. Any interim directions that were subsisting were vacated. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal raises identical grounds and challenges a similar order as a previously dismissed appeal by a coordinate bench, the subsequent appeal should also be dismissed on the same basis to ensure consistency and parity in judicial pronouncements.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT's order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, based on the Apex Court's decision in 'M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati', is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Argument (Appellant): The Appellant contended that the CESTAT's order was erroneous and sought to challenge it. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the specific arguments made by the Appellant beyond stating that the grounds were identical to those in previously dismissed appeals. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent (assessee) relied on the decision of the Apex Court in 'M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati' (2017 (335) ELT 481 (SC)) to support their claim for refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
2022 Ali Mohammad Magrey-CJ (Oral):
At the very outset, what requires to be stated is that a batch of appeals were filed before this Court by the Commissioner, Central, GST and Central Excise (Jammu and Kashmir), Jammu under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 (fort short „the Act‟) against the orders of different dates passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short „the CESTAT‟), thereby setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority and directing for the refund of the Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee in v
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.