Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu filed the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order concerning M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, EPIP Kartholi Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

The High Court recorded that a batch of appeals had earlier been filed by the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise (Jammu and Kashmir), Jammu under Section 35G against orders passed on different dates by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (CESTAT).

In those matters, CESTAT had set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority and had directed refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess to the assessees, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, 2017 (335) ELT 481 (SC).

The High Court further noted that the earlier batch of appeals, together with applications seeking condonation of delay, had CEA No. 10/2022 as the lead case and had already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench through judgment dated 23 May 2022.

 Issues Involved

  • Whether the Revenue’s appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the CESTAT order was maintainable or liable to be dismissed when substantially similar appeals had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench.
  • Whether a challenge concerning refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess raised grounds materially similar to those involved in the earlier batch of appeals.
  • Whether the High Court should follow the earlier Coordinate Bench judgment dated 23 May 2022 in order to maintain parity.
  • Whether any surviving interim directions were required to continue after dismissal of the appeal.

 Appellant’s Arguments — Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu

The appellant-Revenue challenged the order involved in the present appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

From the High Court’s order, the challenge was found to be directed against a similar order to those involved in the earlier batch of appeals. The Court specifically observed that the present challenge rested on almost identical grounds, which had already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in its judgment dated 23 May 2022.

The order does not separately reproduce detailed proposition-wise arguments advanced by the appellant beyond recording the similarity of the challenge and grounds with the earlier batch. Therefore, no additional arguments should be attributed to the Revenue beyond what is expressly reflected in the judicial order.

 Respondent’s Arguments — M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries

The order records that none appeared for the respondent.

Accordingly, the judgment does not set out any separate oral or written arguments advanced on behalf of M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries in the present proceedings. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute specific submissions to the respondent that are not contained in the order.

 Court Order / Findings

The High Court examined the contents of the present appeal and found that:

  • the appeal challenged an order similar to the orders involved in the earlier batch of appeals;
  • the challenge was raised on almost identical grounds;
  • those grounds had already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment dated 23 May 2022; and
  • parity required the present appeal to receive the same treatment.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the Coordinate Bench judgment dated 23 May 2022.

The Court further directed that interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on the date of the order would stand vacated.

 Important Clarification

This order is significant because the High Court did not undertake a fresh detailed adjudication of the underlying cess-refund controversy in isolation. Instead, it expressly proceeded on the basis that the present appeal involved a similar order and almost identical grounds already considered by the Coordinate Bench.

Therefore, the immediate ratio of this order should be understood in its proper procedural context:

  • the Court identified substantial similarity with the earlier batch;
  • it followed the earlier Coordinate Bench decision to maintain parity;
  • the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as the judgment dated 23 May 2022; and
  • any subsisting interim directions stood vacated.

A further important clarification is that the uploaded two-page order refers to the earlier Coordinate Bench judgment and the Supreme Court decision in M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, but it does not reproduce the full reasoning of either decision. Accordingly, the precise ratio of those related decisions should be verified from their complete judgments before drawing broader conclusions beyond the present order.

 Sections Involved

  • Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 — Appeal to the High Court from specified orders of the Appellate Tribunal, subject to the statutory conditions governing such appeals.
  • Central Excise Act, 1944 — Principal enactment expressly referred to in the order.
  • Education Cess provisions — Relevant to the underlying refund controversy; the present order records refund of Education Cess as part of the subject matter of the CESTAT orders.
  • Secondary & Higher Education Cess provisions — Relevant to the underlying refund controversy; the present order records refund of Secondary & Higher Education Cess as part of the subject matter.

Clarification on sections: The uploaded order expressly identifies Section 35G. It does not specify separate charging-section numbers for Education Cess or Secondary & Higher Education Cess. Therefore, additional section numbers should not be inserted into the case summary without verification from the complete underlying proceedings.

Link to download the order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783158419_877compressed.pdf

 Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.