Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Berger Paints INDIA LTD, Sidco Igc Samba

Facts

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Jammu against M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. The appeal concerns a matter that 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. The leading case for those decisions was CEA No. 10 of 2020, decided on May 23, 2022. The present appeal was filed on October 10, 2022. The revenue, represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate, is the appellant, and the respondent is M/s Berger Paints India Ltd., represented by Mr. Ankit Awal, Advocate. No specific tax period, amount in dispute, or the specific order under challenge is detailed in this judgment.

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 May 23, 2022, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. The Court found that the appellant had no new grounds to present in this appeal. Therefore, the matter was squarely covered by the previous decision. The Court dismissed 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. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are identical to previously decided matters and lack new grounds will be dismissed on the same basis as the prior judgments. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

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 argued by the respondent. 2. Whether the appellant has any new grounds to present in this appeal, as implied by the Court's observation. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Jammu): The appellant has not presented any new grounds in this appeal, and the matter is squarely covered by the previous decision of this Court. Respondent (M/s Berger Paints India Ltd.): The respondent implicitly argues that the appeal should be dismissed as it is identical to previous matters decided by the Court. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents by the respondent are recorded, other than the general submission that the matter is covered by prior judgments.