Facts of the Case
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu and
Kashmir, Jammu filed a batch of appeals before the High Court under Section
35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against orders passed on different
dates by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT),
Chandigarh.
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. The Tribunal’s approach was based on 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 specifically recorded 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.
The present appeal, CEA No. 291/2022, challenged a
similar order on almost identical grounds. The Court found that those grounds
had already been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier batch
judgment.
Issues Involved
The principal issues arising from the judgment were:
- Whether
the Revenue’s appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
against the CESTAT order concerning refund of Education Cess and Secondary
& Higher Education Cess required separate consideration when an
earlier batch of appeals involving similar orders and almost identical
grounds had already been dismissed.
- Whether
the High Court should maintain parity with the Coordinate Bench judgment
dated 23 May 2022.
- Whether
the present Revenue appeal could survive when the Court found that the
challenge was similar to the subject matter of the previously decided
batch of appeals.
- What
consequence should follow for any subsisting interim directions after
dismissal of the appeal.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant, the Commissioner of Central GST and Central
Excise J&K, Jammu, challenged the CESTAT order under Section 35G of the
Central Excise Act, 1944.
From the judgment, the Revenue’s challenge concerned a
Tribunal order of the same nature as those involved in the earlier batch of
appeals, where CESTAT had set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)
and the Adjudicating Authority and directed refund of Education Cess and
Secondary & Higher Education Cess.
The High Court expressly observed that the present challenge
was raised on almost identical grounds to those already considered and
dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in its judgment dated 23 May 2022.
Important accuracy note: The
two-page judgment does not separately reproduce or elaborate the appellant’s
detailed legal submissions. Therefore, no additional arguments should be
attributed to the appellant beyond what is expressly reflected in the order.
Respondent’s Arguments
The judgment records that none appeared for the respondent.
Accordingly, no separate oral or written arguments of the
respondent are reproduced in the judgment.
The Court nevertheless examined the contents of the appeal and
compared the challenge with the earlier batch of appeals already decided by the
Coordinate Bench.
Important accuracy note: Since
the order records “None” for the respondent’s appearance, no substantive
respondent argument should be invented or inferred beyond the contents of the
judgment.
Court Order / Findings
The High Court recorded the following material findings:
- A
batch of similar appeals had earlier been filed by the Commissioner under Section
35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT orders relating to
refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.
- Those
earlier appeals, together with delay-condonation applications, had already
been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench on 23 May 2022.
- After
examining the contents of the present appeal, the Court found that the
challenge was directed against a similar order to those involved in
the earlier batch.
- The
grounds raised in the present appeal were almost identical to the
grounds already dealt with by the Coordinate Bench.
- To maintain
parity, the High Court dismissed the present appeal on the same
terms and conditions as laid down in the Coordinate Bench judgment
dated 23 May 2022.
- Any
interim directions subsisting on the date of the judgment were ordered to stand
vacated.
Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
Important Clarification
This judgment is particularly important for correctly
understanding the scope of the High Court’s decision:
- The
High Court did not set out a fresh, independent and detailed
examination of the entire legal controversy concerning refund of
Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.
- The
appeal was dismissed primarily because the Court found that a similar
order and almost identical grounds had already been considered and decided
by a Coordinate Bench.
- The
Court expressly relied on the need to maintain parity with the
earlier judgment dated 23 May 2022.
- The
judgment refers to M/s SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of
Central Excise, Guwahati, 2017 (335) ELT 481 (SC) because the CESTAT
refund directions in the underlying class of matters had been made in view
of that Supreme Court decision.
- The
uploaded judgment does not provide the case title of the lead matter CEA
No. 10/2022; therefore, it would be inaccurate to assign a party name
to that lead case without independent verification.
- The
uploaded judgment also does not reproduce the detailed terms and
conditions of the Coordinate Bench judgment dated 23 May 2022; it only
states that the present appeal was dismissed on the same terms and
conditions.
- The
respondent was unrepresented in the present proceedings, as the judgment
records “None” against the respondent’s appearance.
Sections Involved
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – The
statutory provision expressly mentioned in the judgment under which the
Commissioner filed the appeal before the High Court against the CESTAT order.
Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess – These were the levies forming the subject matter of the refund directions discussed in the judgment. The uploaded order does not specify separate charging-section numbers for these cesses and, therefore, no additional statutory provision should be inserted without external verification.
Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783330565_1325compressed.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
0 Comments
Leave a Comment