Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise J And K, Jammu vs. M/S Biostadt INDIA LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Jammu

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal against M/s Biostadt India Ltd. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. The court noted that this appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the court in a judgment dated May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the court found no new grounds available to the appellant. The matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the previous decision.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court in 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 (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise) in this appeal. Therefore, the matter was squarely covered by the previous decision. The reasoning was based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters already adjudicated should follow the established ruling. The Court dismissed the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. No specific 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, as no new grounds are available to the appellant. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise): Argued that the present appeal is identical to previous appeals decided by the Court and that no new grounds have been presented. Relied on the principle that matters already decided and covered by precedent should be disposed of accordingly. Respondent (M/s Biostadt India Ltd.): Did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their counsel was heard. The judgment implies they would have supported the dismissal of the appeal based on the prior ruling.