Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu

CEA/310/2022HC Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhGSTCNR JKHC02003429202214 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Held

The Court held that the present appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. Since no new grounds were available to the appellant, the matter was squarely covered by the 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 presenting identical facts and issues, without new grounds, are bound by previous High Court judgments on similar matters. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K Jammu, filed an appeal against an order concerning Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. The appeal was stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The leading case among those was CEA No. 10 of 2020, decided on May 23, 2022. The Court heard the counsel for the appellant and 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 decision of this Court in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, decided on May 23, 2022? Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: The petitioner argued that the present appeal is identical to previously decided cases and that no new grounds are available for consideration. They relied on the principle that similar matters should be decided consistently with prior judgments. Respondent: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, or the lack of new arguments from the petitioner, led to the dismissal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Sr. No. 17 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CEA No. 310/2022 CM No. 6511/2022 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J and K Jammu ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate Versus < Sun Pharmaceutical Industries SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu .....Respondent(s) Through :- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

ORDER 14.11.2022

This appeal is similar and identical to the several other Excise Appeals which have been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 wherein CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case.

Having heard counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that as no new ground is available to the appellant, the matter stands squarely covered by the above decision.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and o

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.