Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Nitin Enterprises
Held
The Court held that the instant appeal was challenging a similar order on almost identical grounds as a batch of appeals previously considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The Coordinate Bench had dismissed those appeals vide its judgment dated May 23, 2022. Therefore, to maintain parity, the Court dismissed the present appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned judgment. Any interim directions that were subsisting were also vacated. The ratio decidendi is that when a High Court has already decided a matter on identical facts and grounds, subsequent similar matters should be decided consistently to maintain judicial discipline and parity.
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 the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority, directing a refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the respondent, M/s Nitin Enterprises. 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 the High Court on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was filed with applications for condonation of delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal, challenging an order directing the refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., is identical in grounds and subject matter to a batch of similar appeals previously dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on May 23, 2022? (Question of law). The Petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the appeal should be dismissed on the same terms as the previous judgment due to identical grounds and subject matter. The Respondent (M/s Nitin Enterprises) did not present any arguments as they were represented by 'None'.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 05 Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CEA No. 277/2022 CM Nos. 6064/2022; 6065/2022
Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K, Jammu
… Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
V/s M/s Nitin Enterprises, 166-B-170, 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 the decision rendere
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.