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 is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that were considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant. Consequently, the Court concluded that the matter stands squarely covered by the aforementioned prior decision. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters, lacking new arguments or facts, are decided in line with previous rulings. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical facts and legal arguments to those already adjudicated upon by the same court will be dismissed on the same terms as the prior decision. The operative direction was to dismiss 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. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against M/S Kashmir Agro and Chemicals (respondent). The appeal was stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. The Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the filing of this appeal after prior decisions by the same Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, as argued by the appellant. 2. Whether the appellant has presented any new grounds that warrant a different consideration by the Court. The appellant, represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate, argued that the matter is squarely covered by the Court's prior decision, implying that no further adjudication is necessary. The respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision hinges on whether the present appeal presents novel issues or is merely a repetition of previously decided matters.