TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. Thereafter, the CESTAT vide its Final Order [ 2018 (10) TMI 2020 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] held that the appellant is entitled to take the refund of Education Cess and S H Education Cess in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. [ 2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT ] - It is also found that pursuant to CESTAT s Order dated 25.10.2010, the appellant duly applied for refund of the amount so deposited and was granted by the original authority vide its order dated 11.03.2019 wherein the Original authority has also observed that the appellant is entitled for refund of Education Cess and S H Education Cess and by following the decisions of the CESTAT, the Original authority has rightly granted the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 amounting to Rs. 14,79,272/- through self-credit mode. After following the due process the original authority rejected these claims by holding that their refund claim on account of Education Cess and S H Education Cess paid through PLA is not admissible to the appellant in terms of the said notification, as the said Education Cesses have been levied under the Finance Act, 2004 Finance Act, 2007 respectively and not under any of the Acts as mentioned in the said notification. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal on account of non deposit of mandatory pre-deposit. Against the said order, the appellant approached the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been refunded to the appellant on the same issue and for overlapping period on the strength of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in SRD Nutrients Vs. CCE reported in 2018 (1) SCC 105. He further submits that once it has been held that the appellant is entitled to refund of Education Cess and S H Education Cess on the basis of SRD Nutrients case then the department is not entitled to make recovery of the said refunded amount on the basis of subsequent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Unicorn Industries reported in 2020 (3) SCC 492. He further submits that Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of CGST CE (J K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 (7) TMI 542 has unequivocally held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, I find that the Parallel proceedings for recovery of the self-credit/refund erroneously taken by the appellant in respect of Education Cess and S H Education Cess during the overlapping period, were adjudicated by the original authority as well as by the appellate authorities of the department and appellant was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 22,69,936/- . Thereafter, the CESTAT vide its Final Order No. 63301/2018 dated 25.10.2018 held that the appellant is entitled to take the refund of Education Cess and S H Education Cess in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. I also find that pursuant to CESTAT s Order dated 25.10.2010, the appellant duly applied for refund of the amount so d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation, secondly, they are not maintainable and, lastly, the change of opinion of the court in a subsequent matter of another party would not give any leverage to the appellants to reopen the decisions which have attained finality. 10. Further, I also find that the Revenue filed SLP before the Hon ble Apex Court against the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 23.05.2022, in the case of CGST CE (J K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro and the Hon ble Apex Court vide its order dated 04.07.2023 has upheld the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and dismissed the special writ petition filed by the department. 11. Here, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant findings of the Hon ble Apex Court which is repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
