Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Bbf Industries LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court on May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. Since no new grounds were available to the appellant, the matter was considered to be squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. The reasoning was based on the similarity of the present appeal to the prior cases and the absence of any novel arguments from the appellant. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are identical to previously decided matters and lack new grounds will 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, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu against BBF Industries Ltd. (respondent). The appeal concerns an unspecified tax period and challenges an order or action passed by an unspecified authority. The appellant's counsel appeared, but the respondent's counsel did not. The Court noted that this appeal was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court in a judgment dated May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. No new grounds were presented by the appellant.

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 no new grounds have been presented by the appellant? The appellant argued that the matter is squarely covered by the previous decision of the Court, implying no fresh legal or factual arguments could be made. The revenue did not present any arguments, as the judgment states, "Having heard counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that as no new ground is available to the appellant, the matter stands squarely covered by the above decision."