Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. M/S Bodal Chemicals LTD ( Unit-Vii )

Held

The Court held that the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 31.07.2017 in various appeals (including E/11598/20156, E/10763/2015, etc.) is quashed and set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on a broad consensus between the learned advocates for both parties to dispose of these appeals on the same terms as a previously decided group of appeals (Tax Appeal No.767 of 2018 and allied appeals). The ratio decidendi is that when identical issues and orders are involved, and a precedent exists from the same High Court, subsequent similar matters should follow the established precedent. The Court directed that the appeals be restored to the file of the learned Tribunal. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it was further directed that the appeals on remand 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 date of hearing for Tax Appeal No.444 of 2016.

Facts

These are multiple Tax Appeals filed by the Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Vadodara 1 against Inox India Ltd. The appeals challenge a common order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned CESTAT. The core of the dispute revolves around the CESTAT's order which was the subject of previous appeals before this High Court (Tax Appeal No.767 of 2018 and allied appeals). The present appeals are being disposed of on similar terms as those earlier appeals, with a broad consensus between the parties to remand the matters back to the CESTAT for a fresh decision. The procedural history indicates that the CESTAT's order has led to multiple appeals before this Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 31.07.2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law). Petitioner's Argument (Revenue): The petitioner, Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Vadodara 1, argued that the impugned order of the CESTAT should be quashed and set aside. They relied on a previous order passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No.767 of 2018 and allied appeals, which dealt with a similar common order from the CESTAT. The petitioner sought to have these matters remanded to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. Respondent's Argument (Inox India Ltd.): The respondent, Inox India Ltd., did not present any specific arguments against the remand. Their learned advocate appeared to have reached a consensus with the petitioner's counsel for the matters to be disposed of on similar terms as the earlier group of appeals, implying an agreement for remand.