Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Sidco Industrial Growth Center Samba J And K

Facts

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu against M/S JSB Aluminium SIDCO Industrial Growth Center Samba J and K. The High Court noted that this appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. The Court referred to a judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The Court heard the counsel for the appellant and was of the opinion that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and 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 appeal is not detailed.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court vide judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and therefore, the matter was squarely covered by the aforementioned decision. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters are decided consistently with prior rulings. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal raises no new issues and is identical to previously decided cases, it will be dismissed on the same terms as those cases. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals? Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the present appeal raises no new grounds and is identical to previously decided matters, implying it should be decided based on the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020. Respondent's Argument: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in this judgment. The Court's observation suggests the respondent did not present new arguments that would distinguish this case from the precedent.