Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Berger Paints LTD Sidco Igc Samba

Held

The Court held that all the Excise Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu, against Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills were squarely covered by the Court's prior judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant that would justify a different outcome. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned previous judgment. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal raises identical issues and no new grounds are presented, it will be decided in line with previous binding precedents of the same court. The operative direction was the dismissal of all the appeals.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (Appellant/Petitioner) filed numerous Excise Appeals (CEA Nos. 546, 554-587, 600, 602, 604-608, 622-636 of 2021 and CEA Nos. 1-94, 106-173 of 2022) against Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (Respondent). The appeals were heard virtually by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu. The appellant's counsel presented arguments. The judgment states that the matter is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously decided by the Court on May 23, 2022, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. The Court found no new grounds available to the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present Excise Appeals are covered by the Court's previous decision dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals? Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the present appeals raise similar and identical issues to those decided in the previous judgment. They contended that no new grounds were presented that would warrant a different decision. Revenue/State's Argument: The revenue/State, represented by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu, did not present any new arguments or distinguish the present appeals from the prior judgment. Their position was implicitly that the previous ruling should apply. (Note: The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific legal provisions or prior precedents relied upon by either party, other than referencing the previous Court decision.)