Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise vs. Emcure Pharmaceuticals LTD Sidco Jammu

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. Since no new grounds were presented by the appellant, the matter was squarely covered by the prior decision. The Court found no reason to deviate from its earlier findings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising identical issues without new grounds are bound by previous judgments of the same court.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (respondent). The appeal was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh vide 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 noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant. The matter was considered squarely covered by the aforementioned decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that the present appeal raises no new grounds. Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant argued that the present appeal is identical to previous appeals that have already been decided by this Court. They contended that no new grounds have been presented in this appeal, and therefore, it should be decided in line with the previous judgments. Contentions of the Respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, as reflected in the prior judgments, was upheld.