Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Sidco Industrial Growth Centre Samba J And K

CEA/68/2023HC Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhGSTCNR JKHC02006332202108 May 2023Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Held

The Court held that the present appeal was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court in its judgment dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu) in this appeal. Therefore, the matter was considered squarely covered by the prior decision. The Court dismissed the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the previous judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical facts and no new grounds are bound by previous High Court pronouncements on similar matters. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against M/s JSB Aluminium. The appellant's counsel was heard. The Court noted that this appeal was similar and 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. The Court observed that no new grounds were available to the appellant in the present appeal. The matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the previous decision.

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, given that no new grounds have been presented by the appellant? Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The petitioner/appellant argued that the appeal should be considered on its merits. However, the Court's order indicates that the appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's specific arguments beyond their presence and representation. Respondent's Argument: The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision was based on the fact that the matter was covered by a prior ruling.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CEA No.68/2023 CM Nos.2631/2023 & 2632/2023 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. V/s M/s JSB Aluminium ….Respondent(s) Through :- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

ORDER 08.05.2023

This appeal is similar and identical to the several other Excise Appeals which have been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 wherein CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case.

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.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

Jammu: 08.05.2023 Surinder

(Puneet Gupta) Judge

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.