9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Since the issue involved in these two appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. The details of both the appeals are given herein below : Appeal No. : E/56/2016 E/57/2016 Period of dispute Apr 2012 to Jan 2013 June 2013 to Nov 2013 Demand Rs. 30,74,424/- with interest Rs. 3,05,316/- Penalty Rs. 30,74,424/- - SCN dated 16.04.2013 26.06.2014 OIO No. 33/JC/JK/2014-15 dated 24.02.2015 11/CE/AC/J/D/15 dated 07.05.2015 OIA No. JNK-EXCUS-000-APP-358-359-15-16 dated 28.10.2015 JNK-EXCUS-000-APP-358-359-15-16 dated 28.10.2015 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (in Appeal Nos. E/54465/2015 & E/54221-54225/2015), by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRD Nutrients Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Guwahati - 2017 (355) ELT 481 (SC), has held that the appellant are entitled to the refund on account of education cess and secondary & higher education cess. The learned Consultant further submits that the issue of rejection of refund claim was finally settled in favour of the appellant and therefore, the show cause notice seeking recovery of the said refund becomes infructuous. Further, the learned Consultant relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commr of CGST, Jammu vs. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd - 2023 (386) ELT 193 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C) on a miscellaneous application filed by Revenue seeking to undo aforesaid decision was unnecessary in view of Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides that an earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed to bring it in line with subsequent judgment overruling it - After all, there has to be finality in litigation and a person cannot be vexed twice." 9. In view of our discussion above and by following the ratios of the various decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases as cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, therefore, we set aside the same and allow both the appeals of the appellant. ( Order pronounced in the open court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
