Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Ms Sun Pharma Laboratories LTD Sidco Igc Samba

Held

The Court held that 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. The reasoning provided is that no new grounds are available to the appellant, making the matter identical to the previously decided cases. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal presents no new arguments or facts beyond those considered in a prior binding precedent of the same court, it will be dismissed on the same terms as the precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal 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. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (appellant) filed this appeal against M/s Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. (respondent). The appeal is stated to be identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh vide a judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant, indicating the matter was squarely covered by the prior decision. 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 it being an appeal before the High Court.

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? Petitioner/Appellant's Contention: The appellant argued that the present appeal raises no new grounds and is identical to previously decided matters. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Court noted that no new ground was available to the appellant, implying the respondent's position, if argued, would likely align with the prior decisions that favored the respondent or established a principle that the appellant could not overcome.