Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Pharmaceuticals LTD Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Facts

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against M/s Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The appeal concerns the tax period(s) not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge and the authority that passed it are also not detailed. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history indicates that this appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh vide a judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022, where CEA No.10 of 2020 was the leading case. The present appeal was heard by the Court.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022, passed in CEA No.10 of 2022 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that the appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu) had not presented any new grounds that were not already considered in the prior decision. Therefore, the matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the precedent. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical issues and lacking new grounds are bound by prior judgments of the same court. The operative direction was that the appeal be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned judgment and order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order of this Court dated 23rd May 2022 in CEA No.10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The petitioner/appellant argued that the matter stands squarely covered by the aforementioned decision, as no new grounds were available to the appellant. The respondent (M/s Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) did not present any arguments, as indicated by 'None' appearing for them. The Court had to decide if the present appeal presented any novel legal or factual aspects that warranted a separate consideration, or if it was indeed a repetition of previously adjudicated matters.