Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. M/S Banco Products (INDIA) LTD

Held

The High Court held that the present Tax Appeals were identical to the group of appeals previously decided by it in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. Following the reasoning and decision in those earlier appeals, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 31.07.2017. The matters were restored to the file of the learned CESTAT for fresh decision. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the High Court directed that the appeals on remand be kept pending until the decision of the High 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 CESTAT. The Revenue was permitted to file an application for fixing an early date of hearing for Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016. The appeals were allowed to the extent of remand.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara 1 (Revenue) filed these Tax Appeals against an order passed by the learned CESTAT. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the respondent, Inox India Ltd. The core issue revolved around a common order passed by the CESTAT. The High Court noted that the present appeals were identical to a group of appeals previously decided by it in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. In those earlier appeals, the High Court had quashed and set aside the CESTAT's order and remanded the matters back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 31.07.2017 is required to be quashed and set aside and the matters remanded to the learned CESTAT for fresh decision, in light of the High Court's previous order in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals. Petitioner's Argument: The Revenue contended that the present appeals are identical to the group of appeals decided by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. They argued that the High Court had already passed a speaking order in those appeals, quashing and setting aside the CESTAT's order and remanding the matters. Therefore, the present appeals should be disposed of on the same terms. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, Inox India Ltd., did not present any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. However, the broad consensus between the learned advocates for both parties suggests that the respondent likely agreed with the approach of remanding the matter as per the previous High Court order.