Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Emcure Pharmaceuticals Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that have been previously considered and decided by this Court, with CEA No. 10/2020, decided on 23.05.2022, being the leading case. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court was of the opinion that as no new ground is available to the appellant, the matter stands squarely covered by the above decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are identical and raise no new grounds are bound by previous judgments of the same court on similar matters. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal against an order concerning M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals (Respondent). The appeal was presented before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. The Court noted that this appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. The leading case among these was CEA No. 10/2020, decided on 23.05.2022. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds for the appellant. The matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the prior decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, as argued by the appellant's counsel. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned prior judgment. Contentions: Appellant: Argued that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court, specifically referencing the judgment in CEA No. 10/2020 dated 23.05.2022. The appellant contended that no new grounds are available, and thus the matter is squarely covered by the precedent. Revenue/State: No arguments were recorded for the Revenue/State in the judgment.