Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise Vadodara - I vs. M/S Henkel Chembond Surface Technologies LTD.
Held
The Court held that in view of the broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties to dispose of the present appeals on the same terms as per the order passed in other group of appeals being Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied Tax Appeals, and consequently, to remand all these matters to the learned CESTAT for fresh decision. 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 further multiplicity of proceedings/appeals before the High Court, it was directed that the appeals on remand be kept pending till the decision of the High Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd., being Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016. The Revenue/Department was permitted to file an application for fixing an early date of hearing of Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2016, as its decision would have a direct bearing on the pending appeals before the learned Tribunal.
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 involved INOX INDIA LTD as the respondent. The High Court noted 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). Consequently, the matters were to be remanded to the learned CESTAT for fresh decision. The impugned common order passed by the CESTAT was dated 31.07.2017.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned common order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 31.07.2017 is to be quashed and set aside and the appeals are to be restored to the file of the learned Tribunal for fresh decision, as per the consensus between the parties and the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (Revenue) argued that the present appeals should be disposed of on the same terms as the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 767 of 2018 and allied appeals, which involved a remand to the CESTAT. They relied on the consensus between the parties. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (INOX INDIA LTD) did not explicitly record arguments but was represented by counsel who agreed to the consensus for remand.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/TAXAP/812/2018 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 812 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 813 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 831 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 832 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 833 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 835 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 837 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 838 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 839 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 840 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No 2018:GUJHC:19632-DB
C/TAXAP/812/2018 JUDGM
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.