Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Kashmir Agro And Chemicals Sicop Industrial Area Kathua J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal, CEA No. 407/2022, was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court on May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant in the current appeal. Consequently, the Court decided that the matter was squarely covered by the previous decision. The appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with identical and similar issues and no new grounds are bound by prior judgments of the same court.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu against M/S Kashmir Agro and Chemicals SICOP Industrial Area Kathua J and K (respondent). The appeal, CEA No. 407/2022, was considered by the Court on December 19, 2022. The appellant's counsel was heard. The Court noted that this appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court via a judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The Court found no new grounds available to 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. 10/2020 and connected appeals, concerning identical and similar grounds. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant, through its counsel, argued that the appeal should be considered. However, the Court's order indicates that the appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds available. The judgment does not explicitly detail the appellant's specific arguments beyond the implication that they sought to present their case. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in this particular appeal. However, the Court's decision to dismiss the appeal on the same terms as a previous judgment suggests that the revenue's position in the prior case was upheld.