Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Zuventus Healthcare LTD
Facts
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority, directing a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to Zuventus Healthcare Limited (Respondent). This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling 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 raised similar grounds to those already decided.
Held
The Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining parity with a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench dated May 23, 2022, which had dismissed a batch of similar appeals. The reasoning was that the instant appeal was filed on almost identical grounds and concerned a similar order as those previously adjudicated. The Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent set by its Coordinate Bench. Consequently, any interim directions that were in effect were vacated. 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 maintain consistency and judicial discipline.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT's order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the respondent, based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, is sustainable in law? The Appellant argued that the present appeal involves similar grounds and facts as a batch of appeals previously dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 23, 2022. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed on the same terms. The Respondent did not present any arguments, as indicated by 'None' appearing for them.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 12 Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CEA No. 329/2022 CM Nos. 6632/2022; 6633/2022
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu … Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
V/s
Zuventus Healthcare Limited … Respondent(s) Through: - None.
CORAM:
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Judge
(ORDER) 21.11.2022
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 view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in case titled
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.