TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Finality in Judgments: Excise Duty and Education Cess Exemptions Upheld Despite Conflicting Rulings.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise (J AND K) Versus M/s. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise (J AND K) Versus M/s. Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 (386) E.L.T. 193 (SC) Issues involved:The judgment deals with the issue of conflicting rulings on the exemption from payment of excise duty and education cess, the need for a larger Bench reference, and the finality of judgments in the context of subsequent overruling.Exemption from payment of excise duty and education cess:In the case of SRD Nutrients (P) Limited vs. CCE, it was held that exemption from excise duty would also exempt education cess. However, in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, it was overruled that excise duty exemption does not extend to education cess. The High Court considered the matter and stated that decisions based on SRD Nutrients (P) Limited, which had attained finality, should not be affected by subsequent overruling judgments.Need for a larger Bench reference:A reference order was made on 27.09.2021 to a larger Bench regarding the judgment in SRD Nutrients (P) Limited, which was overruled by M/s Unicorn Industries. The court questioned the necessity of this reference, highlighting that seeking a second review of a judgment after dismissal of a review petition is impermissible. The principle of finality in litigation and the interest of the State in ending disputes were emphasized.Finality of judgments and subsequent overruling:The court discussed the importance of finality in litigation to avoid endless confusion and ensure justice. It cited legal maxims such as 'Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa' (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause) and 'Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' (It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation). The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, emphasizing the need for closure in legal disputes to uphold public policy and prevent prolonged litigation.
TaxTMI 