Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. M/S Zydex Industries

Held

The High Court held that the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated July 31, 2017, was liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court followed its own previous order in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals. The reasoning was based on the broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties to dispose of the present appeals on the same terms. The Court quashed and set aside the CESTAT's order and restored the appeals to the file of the learned Tribunal. As a direction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appeals on remand were to be kept pending until the decision of the High Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016). The Revenue was permitted to file an application for fixing an early date for the hearing of Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016, as its decision would directly impact the pending appeals before the Tribunal. The appeals were partly allowed to the extent of quashing and setting aside the CESTAT's order and remanding the matter.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara (Revenue) filed multiple Tax Appeals before the Gujarat High Court against an order passed by the learned CESTAT. The appeals were filed against a common order dated July 31, 2017. The petitioner, Inox India Ltd., was the respondent in these appeals. The High Court noted that there was a broad consensus between the parties to dispose of these appeals on the same terms as a group of previously decided appeals (Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals). The core of the issue involved the impugned common order of the CESTAT, which was being challenged by the Revenue.

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? The Revenue argued that the appeals should be disposed of on the same terms as decided in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals. The Revenue's contention was that the CESTAT's order should be quashed and set aside, and the matters should be remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The Revenue relied on the decision of the High Court in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals. The Revenue also sought to keep the appeals pending before the CESTAT until the decision of the High Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016), as it would have a direct bearing on the pending appeals. The Revenue did not present any arguments against the CESTAT's order itself, but rather sought a procedural outcome based on prior judgments.