Commissioner Of Crentral GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments Private Limited Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by the Court's previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that no new grounds were available to the appellant in this case, making it identical to the previously decided matters. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that raise no new issues and are identical to previously decided cases should be dismissed on the same terms as the prior judgments. The Court dismissed 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 specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu (Petitioner/Appellant) filed an appeal against M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (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. The procedural history indicates that this appeal is 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 May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The Court heard counsel for the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, as no new grounds are available to the appellant. Petitioner/Appellant's Contention: The appellant argued that the appeal is identical to previous matters decided by the Court and that no new grounds are available to support their case. They relied on the principle that matters already decided by a higher court should be followed. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent did not present any arguments that would distinguish this case from the precedents cited.