Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Ambica International Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court vide its judgment and order 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, and therefore, the matter was squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical facts and issues, without new grounds, will be decided in line with established precedents of the same court. No specific issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against an order concerning Ambika International. The High Court noted that this appeal was 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 appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds presented. The matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the prior decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is identical to and covered by the Court's previous judgment in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, as argued by the appellant's counsel? 2. Whether the appellant has presented any new grounds that warrant a different consideration from the previous judgment? Contentions: Appellant: The appellant, through their counsel, argued that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that have already been decided by the Court. They implicitly contended that the prior decision should govern this case as no new grounds were available. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue/State. However, the Court's observation that no new grounds were available to the appellant suggests that the Revenue/State likely did not present any counter-arguments or new submissions that would deviate from the established precedent.