Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. M/S R R Kabel LTD

Held

The Court held that the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated July 31, 2017, in various appeal numbers, should be quashed and set aside. The Court's decision was based on a broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties to dispose of the present appeals on the same terms as per the order passed in other group of appeals, specifically Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. The reasoning provided in the order for Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 was adopted. The Court directed that the appeals be restored to the file of the learned Tribunal. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appeals on remand are to be kept pending until the decision of this Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016), as that decision would have a direct bearing on the pending appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue/Department was permitted to file an application for fixing an early hearing date for Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016.

Facts

These are multiple Tax Appeals filed by the Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Vadodara against Inox India Ltd. The appeals challenge a common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated July 31, 2017. The parties have reached a consensus to dispose of these appeals on similar terms as a group of other appeals, specifically Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals. The core of the dispute revolves around the CESTAT's order, which is being contested by the revenue. The procedural history indicates that this court had previously dealt with similar matters and decided to remand them to the CESTAT for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated July 31, 2017, is liable to be quashed and set aside? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Vadodara, argued that the matter should be remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration, aligning with the court's decision in a previous group of similar appeals (Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals). They relied on the reasoning and directions provided in that prior judgment. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, Inox India Ltd., did not present any specific arguments against the remand. The consensus between the parties suggests an agreement to follow the established precedent for similar cases.