Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments PVT LTD Kathua J And K

Facts

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central CGST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu against M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The appeal concerns matters identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The Court noted that no new grounds were presented by the appellant, and the matter was squarely covered by a prior judgment dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in this order. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed, other than it being an Excise Appeal before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. Since no new grounds were available to the appellant, the matter was squarely covered by the aforementioned decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical facts and legal issues, where no new grounds are presented, will be decided based on established precedents of the same court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds have been raised by the appellant. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant, represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate, did not present any new arguments. The Court's observation indicates that the appellant conceded or failed to present any distinct legal grounds beyond those already adjudicated. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mr. R.S Parihar, Advocate vice Mr. Gautam Chugh, Advocate, did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed based on prior precedent. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.