Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Aravali Infra Power LTD Kathua
Held
The Court held that the present appeal was to be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment dated May 23, 2022, passed by the Coordinate Bench. The reasoning was that the instant appeal challenged a similar order from the CESTAT, based on almost identical grounds that had already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in the previous batch of appeals. The Court emphasized the need to maintain parity. Any interim directions that were subsisting were vacated. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical facts, grounds, and challenging similar orders, which have already been decided by a coordinate bench, should be dismissed on the same terms to ensure consistency and parity in judicial pronouncements.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST 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 assessee, M/s Aravali Infra Power 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 a lead case, had previously been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal also challenged a similar CESTAT order on identical grounds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal, challenging a CESTAT order directing refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, is to be dismissed on the same grounds and terms as a batch of similar appeals previously dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 23, 2022? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu, argued that the present appeal involves a similar CESTAT order and identical grounds as those considered and dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on May 23, 2022. They sought to maintain parity with the previous judgment. Respondent's Argument: None.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 15 Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CEA No. 287/2022 CM Nos. 6092/2022; 6093/2022
Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K, Jammu
… Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
V/s M/s Aravali Infra Power Ltd., Plot No.93, 112 & 113, SICOP, Industrial Estate, Kathua, J&K. … Respondent(s) Through: - None.
CORAM:
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Judge
(JUDGMENT)
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 t
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.