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

Held

The Court held that the instant appeal challenges an order similar to those previously considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The grounds raised in this appeal were also found to be almost identical to those dealt with in the earlier judgment dated May 23, 2022. Consequently, to maintain parity and consistency with the previous decision, 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 raising identical issues and grounds, which have already been decided by a coordinate bench of the same High Court, should be dismissed to maintain judicial discipline and consistency, following the precedent set by the earlier judgment.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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 the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to M/s Berger Paints India Limited. 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, with CEA No. 10/2022 as the lead case, had previously been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal, challenging a CESTAT order directing refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess based on the SRD Nutrients judgment, is maintainable in light of a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissing similar appeals on identical grounds. The Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the appeal challenges a similar order to those previously dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on identical grounds. They contended that to maintain parity, the present appeal should also be dismissed on the same terms. The Respondent (M/s Berger Paints India Limited) did not present any arguments, as indicated by 'None' appearing for them.