Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Sun Pharmaceutical 6-9 Epip Kartholi Bari Brahmana Jammu

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). The CESTAT had set aside orders from lower authorities and directed a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the respondent, Sun Pharmaceutical. 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 the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was also filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, and challenged a similar CESTAT order on identical grounds.

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 CESTAT order on grounds identical to those in 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 with the previous decision, the Court found no reason to deviate from the earlier ruling. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment dated May 23, 2022. Any interim directions that were subsisting were also vacated. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical grounds and challenging similar orders, where a Coordinate Bench has already rendered a decision, should follow the precedent set by that bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against the CESTAT order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess is maintainable, considering that similar appeals were dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 23, 2022. Petitioner's Argument (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu): The appeal is maintainable and should be decided on merits. The petitioner likely intended to argue that the CESTAT's order was erroneous, possibly by distinguishing the facts or legal principles from the 'SRD Nutrients' case or by raising other grounds not explicitly detailed in this brief judgment. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner beyond the filing of the appeal. Respondent's Argument (Sun Pharmaceutical): No arguments were recorded from the respondent as they were not represented.