Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Sumil Chemicals Industries PVT LTD Industrial Growth Centre Sidco Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal, CEA No. 401/2022, is identical to several other excise appeals previously considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. Since the appellant presented no new grounds, the matter was found to be squarely covered by the aforementioned prior decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical issues without new grounds are bound by previous High Court judgments on similar matters.

Facts

This appeal, CEA No. 401/2022, was filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against M/S Sumil Chemicals Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appeal concerns matters identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The leading case among those prior decisions was CEA No. 10 of 2020, which was decided on May 23, 2022. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court noted that no new grounds were presented by the appellant. The present appeal was therefore considered to be squarely covered by the prior judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the High Court's previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds have been presented by the appellant? Petitioner/Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that the present appeal raises issues identical to those decided in previous, similar excise appeals. They contended that the matter is squarely covered by the Court's prior ruling in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected matters, and no new grounds warrant a different decision. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, as reflected in the prior judgments, was upheld.