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

CEA/269/2022HC Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhGSTCNR JKHC02002851202217 October 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN,HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

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 challenges an order or action by an unspecified authority. The amount in dispute is not stated. This appeal is stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in a judgment dated 23rd May 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The appellant's counsel was heard.

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that were considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. Since no new grounds were available to the appellant, the matter was considered squarely covered by the aforementioned decision. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous ruling. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical facts and no new grounds are bound by previous High Court judgments on similar matters. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are available to the appellant? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the appeal is identical to previous cases and no new grounds are available, implying it should be decided based on the precedent. Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded for the revenue/state in this judgment. The judgment notes that counsel for the appellant was heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CEA No.269/2022 CM Nos. 5976/2022, 5977/2022 Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate V/s Jay Ambey Aromatics SIDCO Industrial Complex Jammu ….Respondent(s) Through :- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

ORDER 17.10.2022

This appeal is similar and identical to the several other Excise Appeals which have been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 wherein CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case.

Having heard counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that as no new ground is available to the appellant, the matter stands squarely covered by the above decision.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.