Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Bbf Industries LTD Industrial Growth Centre Samba Jammu J And K

Facts

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

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by its previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that the appellant had not presented any new grounds in this appeal, making it identical to the previously decided matters. Therefore, the Court found no basis to deviate from its earlier decision. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical facts and no new grounds are bound by prior judgments of the same court. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.

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 presented by the appellant. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant, Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu, argued that the matter is identical to previous appeals decided by the Court and that no new grounds are available to them. They implicitly relied on the principle that similar matters should be decided consistently. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, M/s BBF Industries Ltd., did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court proceeded based on the appellant's submissions and the prior precedent.