Commissioner, Central GST And Central Excise, Vadodara Ii vs. M/S Upl Limited
Held
The Court held that the controversy in the present case is similar to the one decided in Commissioner of Central GST v. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the CESTAT is quashed and set aside. The appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal. To prevent multiplicity of proceedings, the Court directed that the remanded appeal be kept pending until the High Court renders a decision in the case of Essar Steel India Limited (Tax Appeal No.444 of 2016). The ratio decidendi is that when a dispute is identical to a matter already decided by the High Court, the same principle should be applied, and the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings consistent with the precedent.
Facts
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara II against M/s UPL Limited and another. The core of the dispute is similar to a previously decided case, Commissioner of Central GST v. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. The impugned order under challenge is dated 15.02.2018, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, in Appeal Nos. E/10339-10340/2016. The High Court was informed that the controversy was identical to the Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. case, where the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal's file.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the judgment in Commissioner of Central GST v. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.767 of 2018)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present appeal involves a controversy identical to that in Commissioner of Central GST v. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd., which was decided by this court on 09.07.2018. Therefore, the present appeal should be decided on similar lines. Respondent's Contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention. The judgment notes an "admitted position" that the controversy is similar.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Heard Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
It is an admitted position that the controversy involved in the present case is similar to the controversy involved in the case of Commissioner of Central GST v. Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. which came to be decided by this court vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2018 passed in Tax Appeal No.767 of 2018 and c
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.