Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Sumil Chemicals Industries PVT LTD Igc Sidco Samba

Held

The Court held that all the Excise Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu, were squarely covered by the Court's previous 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 to distinguish the present cases from the prior decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the aforementioned prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals that are identical to previously decided matters and lack new arguments will be disposed of in line with the precedent. 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 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The appeals were against Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (Respondent). The appeals were stated to be similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. The Court noted that no new grounds were available to the appellant, and the matter was squarely covered by a prior decision dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The specific tax periods and the amounts in dispute were not detailed in this judgment. The procedural history leading to these appeals was not elaborated upon, other than the fact that they were filed before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present Excise Appeals are covered by the Court's previous judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are available to the appellant. The Appellant/Petitioner argued that the appeals are identical to previous ones and therefore should be dismissed on the same terms as the prior judgment. The Respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in this judgment. The core of the issue revolves around the applicability of a precedent to the current set of appeals due to their similarity and the absence of novel arguments from the revenue.