Central GST And Excise Vadodara - Ii vs. M/S Atul Limited ( Arimatics Division )

Held

The High Court held that the present Tax Appeals should be allowed on the same terms as the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned common order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 31.07.2017. The appeals were restored to the file of the learned Tribunal. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the 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 Tribunal. The Revenue/Department was granted liberty to file an application for fixing an early date of hearing for Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016. The ratio is that identical appeals should be treated consistently with prior High Court rulings, and matters should be remanded for fresh consideration pending a decision on a related substantial legal issue.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara, filed multiple Tax Appeals before the Gujarat High Court against an order passed by the CESTAT. The appeals concerned various tax periods and involved the respondent, Inox India Ltd. The High Court noted that these appeals were identical to a group of appeals previously decided by the same Court in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. In that prior decision, the Court had quashed and set aside the CESTAT's order and remanded the matters back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The current appeals were also disposed of on the same terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT is required to be quashed and set aside and the matters remanded to the learned CESTAT for fresh decision, as per the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, argued that the present appeals should be disposed of on the same terms as the group of appeals in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018, which involved an identical common order from the CESTAT. They relied on the High Court's previous decision in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, Inox India Ltd., did not present any specific arguments in the provided text, but the consensus between the parties suggests they agreed with the petitioner's submission to follow the precedent set in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018.