Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Zuventus Healthcare LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana

Facts

The Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, against 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 the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee, Zuventus Healthcare Ltd. 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 been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was filed on similar grounds and challenged a similar CESTAT order.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise. The Court noted that the instant appeal was filed against a CESTAT order that was similar to those considered in a batch of appeals previously decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The grounds raised in the present appeal were also stated to be almost identical to those already dealt with by the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, to maintain parity, the Court dismissed the present appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the earlier judgment. Any interim directions that were subsisting were also vacated. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical grounds and challenging similar orders, which have already been decided by a coordinate bench, should be dismissed on the same basis to ensure 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 assessee, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, is sustainable in law? The appellant (Commissioner CGST and Central Excise) contended that the CESTAT's order was erroneous, as it relied on a Supreme Court judgment that was not applicable to the facts of the case or that the grounds raised in the appeal were identical to those already decided by a Coordinate Bench. The respondent (Zuventus Healthcare Ltd.) did not appear before the court, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on their behalf.