Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Berger Paints INDIA Limited Sidco Igc Samba J And K

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise. The Court observed that the instant appeal challenged a CESTAT order that was similar to those considered in a batch of previous appeals. These previous appeals, which raised almost identical grounds, had been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in a judgment dated May 23, 2022. Therefore, to maintain parity and consistency, the present appeal was also dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. Any interim directions that were subsisting were vacated. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical grounds, which have already been decided by a coordinate bench, should be dismissed to ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, 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), Chandigarh. The CESTAT had set aside orders of lower authorities and directed a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to M/s Berger Paints India Limited. This was in line with 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 also challenged a similar CESTAT order on almost identical grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT's order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessee is legally sustainable, considering the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati? The Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) contended that the CESTAT's order was erroneous and should be set aside. The Respondent (M/s Berger Paints India Limited) argued for the refund based on the Apex Court's ruling. The judgment notes that the grounds raised in this appeal were almost identical to those considered and dealt with by a Coordinate Bench in a previous judgment dated May 23, 2022, which had dismissed a batch of similar appeals.