Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Igc Samba J And K

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is squarely covered by the previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that the appellant had not presented any new grounds for consideration, making the current appeal identical in nature to the previously decided cases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical issues without new grounds are bound by previous High Court decisions on those issues. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (respondent). The appeal concerned an issue that was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the High Court. The Court noted that no new grounds were presented by the appellant in the current appeal. The judgment refers to a prior decision dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals as the precedent. The specific tax period(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed, other than the filing of the present appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, as no new grounds have been raised by the appellant? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that the matter should be considered on its merits. However, the Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue/State. However, the Court's observation implies that the revenue/State likely relied on the previous judgment to argue that the present appeal should be dismissed on similar terms.