Case Law Details
Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise Vs Intex Industries SIDCO Industrial Complex (Jammu and Kashmir High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled against the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu’s appeal, which sought the recovery of a refunded cess amount. The appeal was filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but was dismissed on the grounds of being delayed by 1488 days.
Analysis: The appeal presented by the Commissioner was centered on the recovery of refunded Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess. It was argued by the appellant that the same issue had been raised in an earlier appeal, which the Division Bench of the court dismissed due to being barred by limitation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also weighed in on a similar matter and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. This verdict by the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that judgments that have attained finality should not be disturbed based on subsequent decisions, as it would continually reopen closed cases, going against the essence of public policy.
Conclusion: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s decision underscores the principle of providing closure to litigations and respecting judgments that have attained finality. This judgment reinforces the idea that public policy aims to bring an end to prolonged legal disputes, ensuring that cases once closed do not get unnecessarily reopened.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
CM No. 4236/2023
For the reasons stated in the application coupled with submissions made at bar, the present application is allowed and the requirement of filing of typed/legible copies of the annexure(s) with the appeal is dispensed with till next date.
Disposed of.
CEA No. 117/2023 & CM No. 4235/2023
The appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order dated 06.03.2018 passed by CESTAT Chandigarh, is delayed by 1488 days. Hence, a separate application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant fairly submits that the similar issue had arisen in an appeal bearing CEA No. 10/2020, wherein also the appellant/applicant had sought condonation of delay on similar grounds as have been urged in this application but the Division Bench of this Court did not accept the application and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
It is also submitted that the Supreme Court has also considered the matter in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023, titled as ‘Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) versus M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ’ and dismissed the SLP.
The operative part of the said SLP is reproduced as under:
“ In our view the High Court has rightly answered the aforesaid question. The High Court in the impugned order while considering the judgment passed by this Court in SRD Nutrients (P) Limited (supra) as well as in M/s Unicorn Industries (supra) has observed in Paragraph 74 as under:
“Applying the aforesaid principle in the cases at hand, since the assessee has been held entitled to the refund of the Educational cess and Secondary & Higher Educational cess on the basis of a judgment and order of the Supreme Court in case SRD Nutrients which was in vogue at the relevant time, the appellants are not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Unicorn Industries. If such an action is permitted, it will open a Pandora box and the lis between the parties which had attained finality will never come to an end. This would be against the public policy which envisages providing quietus to litigation at some stage.”
In substance, the High Court has stated that the decision in SRD Nutrients (P) Limited (supra) had attained finality and was binding on the parties thereto. Therefore, the subsequent decision of this Court overruling SRD Nutrients (P) Limited (supra) in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries cannot have a bearing on past decisions which had attained finality although they had followed SRD Nutrients (P) Limited (supra), which was subsequently overruled in M/s Unicorn Industries. Otherwise a pandora ’s box would be opened and there would be no end to litigation, which is against public policy.
That is exactly what is sought to be done by the reference order dated 27.09.2021. When we read the reference order in light of the what has been discussed, we find that the reference order was unnecessary.
In the circumstances, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In view of the above, what has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 23 .05 .2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and also upheld by the Supreme Court, same applies on all counts to the application on hand.
Accordingly, the appeal bearing No. CEA No. 117/2023 is dismissed along with connected applications(s) being barred by limitation.
