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

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central CGST and Central Excise J&K Jammu, filed this appeal against M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. The appeal concerns an issue previously decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals via a judgment and order dated May 23, 2022. The petitioner's counsel appeared, while the respondent was not represented. The Court noted that no new grounds were presented by the appellant, indicating the matter was squarely covered by the prior decision. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this specific appeal is not detailed beyond its similarity to previous cases.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical and similar to several other Excise Appeals that were previously considered and decided by this Court vide its judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and the matter was squarely covered by the prior decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical issues and no new grounds are bound by previous High Court pronouncements on similar matters. 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, and thus should be dismissed on the same terms? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the present appeal is identical and similar to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. They contended that no new grounds are available to the appellant, and therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the prior decision. They relied on the Court's judgment dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020. Respondent's Argument: No arguments were recorded from the respondent's side.