Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Casil Industries LTD Igc Samba

Held

The Court held that the issues involved in these appeals have already been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, which were dismissed. Since the present appeals raise no new grounds and the issue stands covered by the prior judgment, the Court dismissed all these appeals on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment dated 23.05.2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue has been conclusively decided by a coordinate bench and no new grounds are presented, subsequent appeals on the same issue will be dismissed following the precedent. The operative direction was for the Registry to place a copy of the order on the record of each file.

Facts

These are a batch of appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and connected respondents. The appeals concern issues that had previously been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The appellant did not present any new grounds for appeal beyond those already considered in the prior judgment. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in this judgment. The procedural history indicates that these appeals were filed after the aforementioned judgment by the Coordinate Bench.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issues raised in these appeals are covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) argued that the appeals should be considered on their merits. However, the judgment notes that no new grounds were urged by the appellant. The Respondent (Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) contended, implicitly, that the prior judgment of the Coordinate Bench should be followed, as the issues are identical and no new arguments have been presented. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent's arguments but implies their reliance on the previous ruling.