Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

CEA/301/2022HC Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhGSTCNR JKHC02003813202207 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

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. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The reasoning was that no new grounds were available to the appellant to distinguish the present case from the precedents already set by the Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal presents no new arguments or facts beyond those already decided by the High Court in similar matters, it will be dismissed on the basis of those prior decisions. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against UFLEX Ltd (respondent). The appeal concerns an unspecified tax period and an unspecified order or action passed by an unspecified authority. The amount in dispute is not stated. This appeal is 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 in 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 found no new grounds for the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that the appellant has not presented any new grounds. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the present appeal is identical to previous appeals decided by the Court. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds available to the appellant. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue/State. However, the Court's decision implies that the Revenue/State's position, as reflected in the prior judgments, was upheld.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Sr. No. 22 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CEA No. 301/2022 CM Nos. 6445/2022, 6446/2022 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise Jammu ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate Versus < UFLEX Ltd SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J and K .....Respondent(s) Through :- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

ORDER 07.11.2022

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 order

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.