Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. M/S Jay Ambey, Aromatics,Jammu.

Held

The Court held that, in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, it was not required to delve further into the merits of the appeals. The Court noted that the parties had jointly stated that the matter in issue was squarely covered by the order and judgment dated December 31, 2024, rendered by a Coordinate Bench in CEA No. 7/2020 (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu and Kashmir Jammu vs Narbada Industries). Consequently, the Court acceded to the prayer made by the counsel and disposed of the appeals in terms of the aforementioned judgment. No specific findings on the substantial questions of law framed earlier were recorded as the appeals were decided on the basis of the precedent.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (appellant) filed several appeals against an order passed by a Coordinate Bench. The respondent is M/s Jay Ambey Aromatics, Jammu. The appeals were listed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. At the outset, counsel for both parties referred to a previous order dated December 9, 2019, where substantial questions of law were framed. They jointly submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by a prior judgment dated December 31, 2024, rendered by a Coordinate Bench in CEA No. 7/2020 (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu and Kashmir Jammu vs Narbada Industries Lane No. 2, Phase-II, Sidco Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu). Based on this joint submission, the Court was not required to delve into the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated December 31, 2024, in CEA No. 7/2020 (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu and Kashmir Jammu vs Narbada Industries)? Petitioner/Appellant's Contention: The appellant, through its counsel, submitted that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. They urged that the appeal be disposed of in the same terms as the cited judgment. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through their counsel, concurred with the appellant's submission that the matter is covered by the prior judgment and agreed to the disposal of the appeal in similar terms.