Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S V M Timber Industries Sicop Industrial Estate Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that were previously considered and decided by the Court, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case decided on 23rd May 2022. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, the Court was of the opinion that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and therefore, the matter was squarely covered by the previous decision. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal 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. The ratio decidendi is that identical appeals with no new grounds are bound by previous High Court judgments 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 M/s V M Timber Industries SICOP Industrial Estate Kathua J&K (respondent). The appeal was stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. The leading case among those previous decisions was CEA No. 10 of 2020, decided on 23rd May 2022. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant. The matter was considered squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 23rd May 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 judgment. The appellant argued that the present appeal is identical to previous appeals decided by the Court and that no new grounds are available. The respondent's arguments were not recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision hinges on whether the previous judgment is indeed applicable and dispositive of the current appeal.