Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Jammu Pigment PVT LTD Kathua J And K

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 prior judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that the appellant had not presented any new grounds to warrant a different 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 with identical facts and no new grounds are bound by previous judicial pronouncements on similar matters. No specific operative directions beyond dismissal were mentioned, and no issues were expressly left undecided.

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 judgment indicates that these appeals are similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the Court. The Court explicitly states that no new grounds are available to the appellant and the matter is squarely covered by a prior decision dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in this judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present Excise Appeals are covered by the Court's previous judgment dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds are presented by the appellant. Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu): The appellant contended that the appeals should be decided on their merits. However, the Court's observation suggests that the appellant did not present any new grounds that would distinguish these appeals from the previously decided ones. Respondent/Revenue (Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills): The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in this judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely relied on the precedent set by the earlier judgment.