Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigments PVT LTD Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by its previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was based on the observation that no new grounds were available to the appellant in the current case. Therefore, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent. The principle established is that appeals with identical facts and no new legal arguments will be dismissed on the same terms as prior similar judgments. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The appeal concerns an issue that is stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court. The leading case among those previous decisions was CEA No. 10 of 2020, decided on May 23, 2022. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds were available to the appellant. The dispute involves a matter that was squarely covered by the prior judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are available to the appellant? Arguments for the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu): The appellant argued that the present appeal raises issues identical to those decided in previous cases, specifically CEA No. 10 of 2020. They contended that since the facts and legal grounds are the same, the outcome should follow the precedent set by the Court. Arguments for the Respondent (M/s Jammu Pigments Pvt. Ltd.): The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent's counsel. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, or at least the legal position relevant to the respondent, was consistent with the prior ruling.