Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Vmco Alloys Industrial Area Katuha J And K

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh. The CESTAT had set aside orders from lower authorities and directed a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, M/s VMCO Alloys Industrial Area, Kathua, J&K. 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. The present appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, with applications for condonation of delay.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu. The Court noted that the instant appeal challenged a similar order from the CESTAT, based on almost identical grounds as a batch of previous appeals that had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. To maintain parity and consistency, the Court applied the same reasoning and outcome as in the previous judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions. Any interim directions that were in effect were vacated. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has already decided a series of similar appeals on identical grounds, subsequent appeals on the same issues will be dismissed to maintain judicial discipline and consistency, following the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench.

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 Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, is legally sustainable. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, argued that the CESTAT's order was erroneous and sought to challenge it. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, M/s VMCO Alloys Industrial Area, Kathua, J&K, had obtained an order from the CESTAT directing the refund of the specified cesses. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the present judgment, as none appeared.