Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Sidco Industrial Growth Centre Samba J And K
Held
The Court held that the present appeal, CEA No. 427/2022, was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that had already been decided by the Court. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) to distinguish this case from the precedent set by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned prior decision. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal presents no new arguments or distinguishing facts from a prior binding precedent, it will be dismissed in accordance with that precedent.
Facts
This appeal, CEA No. 427/2022, was filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu, against M/S JSB Aluminium SIDCO Industrial Growth Centre Samba J&K. The appellant's counsel was Mr. Jagpaul Singh. The Court noted that this appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. Specifically, it was stated to be squarely covered by the Court's judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. No new grounds were presented by the appellant.
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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) argued that the appeal should be considered on its merits. However, the Court's order indicates that no new grounds were available to the appellant, suggesting that the petitioner's counsel may have been heard but could not present any novel arguments to distinguish the current case from the precedent. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (M/S JSB Aluminium) did not have their counsel listed for arguments in the provided text. However, given the outcome, it can be inferred that the respondent likely relied on the previous judgment of the Court, which was favorable to them.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 26.12.2022
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.
(Rajesh Sekhri) 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.
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.