Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Jay Ambey Aromatics Sidco Industrial Complex Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against Jay Ambey Aromatics (respondent). The appeal concerns an unspecified tax period and an unspecified order or action passed by an unspecified authority. The amount in dispute is not stated. This appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The leading case for those decisions was CEA No. 10 of 2020, with a judgment and order dated May 23, 2022. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds for the appellant.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by the previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant, making the matter identical to the previously decided cases. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters with identical facts and no new arguments should be decided consistently with prior rulings. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are identical to previously decided cases, with no new grounds presented, should be dismissed on the same terms as the prior judgments. 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, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the previous judgment and order of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are available to the appellant? Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the matter is identical to previous appeals decided by the Court and that no new grounds are available to support their case. They relied on the principle that similar matters should be decided consistently. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument for the revenue or State beyond their role as the appellant in the present case. However, their implicit position is that the appeal should be allowed or decided on its merits, which they appear to concede is not possible due to the lack of new grounds.