Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Gaurav Agro - Chem Industries Sicop Igc Kathua J And K

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal 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 the assessee, M/s Gaurav Agro, Chem Industries (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 this Court on May 23, 2022. The instant appeal was filed against a similar CESTAT order on almost identical grounds.

Held

The Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the instant appeal challenged a CESTAT order that was similar to those considered in a previous batch of appeals decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 23, 2022. The grounds raised in the present appeal were also found to be almost identical to those dealt with in the prior 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 subsisting interim directions were vacated. The ratio decidendi is that similar appeals, based on identical grounds and concerning similar orders, should be decided consistently with previous judgments of the Court, especially when the respondent offers no contrary arguments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT's order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, M/s Gaurav Agro, Chem Industries, is sustainable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati? The Appellant argued that the appeal should be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated May 23, 2022, which dealt with similar appeals on identical grounds. The Appellant relied on the principle of maintaining parity. The Respondent did not present any arguments.