Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Coromandel International LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu
Held
The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by the Court's previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that no new grounds were presented by the appellant that would warrant a different decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical issues and grounds as those already decided by a High Court, without any new material or arguments, should follow the established precedent. 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 Coromandel International Ltd. Jammu (respondent). The appeal was stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court. The Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and the matter was squarely covered by a prior judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute were not detailed in this order, nor was the specific order or action under challenge or the authority that passed it explicitly stated, beyond the appellant being the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are available to the appellant? Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu): Argued that the appeal is identical to previous matters decided by the Court and therefore should be dismissed on the same terms. Relied on the principle that identical matters should be decided consistently. Respondent (Coromandel International Ltd. Jammu): No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in this order. The Court's decision appears to be based on the appellant's submission and the prior precedent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 30.01.2023
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.
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.
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.