Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, preferred Central Excise Appeal No. 258/2022 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu against M/s R B Jodhamal and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tope Sherkhania, Jammu, J&K.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma.

The High Court observed that the present appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that had already been considered and decided by the Court through its judgment and order dated 23 May 2022. In that batch of matters, CEA No. 10 of 2020 was treated as the leading case.

The Court further noted that no new ground was available to the appellant-Revenue that could distinguish the present appeal from the earlier decided batch. Consequently, the controversy was held to be squarely covered by the prior decision.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising from the order were:

  1. Whether the present Central Excise Appeal raised any new or distinguishable ground requiring independent adjudication by the High Court.
  2. Whether the appeal was fully and squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals.
  3. Whether an identical Excise Appeal could be sustained when the governing controversy had already been decided in an earlier leading case and no fresh ground was available to the appellant.

Petitioner’s / Appellant’s Arguments

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, appeared through learned counsel Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.

The uploaded order does not record detailed substantive arguments advanced by the appellant-Revenue. It only records that the Court heard counsel for the appellant and thereafter formed the opinion that no new ground was available to the appellant.

Accordingly, no additional factual or statutory contention should be attributed to the Revenue beyond what is expressly recorded in the judicial order.

Respondent’s Arguments

The uploaded order does not record any separate or detailed arguments on behalf of M/s R B Jodhamal and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Therefore, it would not be appropriate to attribute any specific submission, contention, concession, or legal argument to the respondent that does not appear in the order.

The operative judicial position, however, was that the matter stood squarely covered by the earlier decision dated 23 May 2022 in CEA No. 10 of 2020 and connected appeals.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court made the following material findings:

  • The present appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals already considered and decided by the Court.
  • Those earlier appeals had been disposed of through the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022.
  • CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case in that earlier batch.
  • After hearing counsel for the appellant, the Court found that no new ground was available to the appellant.
  • The matter therefore stood squarely covered by the earlier decision.
  • Consequently, CEA No. 258/2022 was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s Central Excise Appeal.

The dismissal was expressly ordered on the same terms and conditions as those contained in the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022 passed in the leading CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

Important Clarification

A significant clarification arising from this order is that the High Court did not undertake a fresh, independent adjudication of the underlying substantive excise controversy in CEA No. 258/2022.

Instead, the appeal was disposed of by applying the earlier judgment dated 23 May 2022 because:

  • the present appeal was similar and identical to the earlier Excise Appeals;
  • no new ground was available to the appellant; and
  • the matter stood squarely covered by the earlier decision.

Accordingly, for a complete understanding of the substantive legal controversy, the terms and conditions governing the dismissal, and the detailed reasoning on the underlying excise issue, the leading judgment dated 23 May 2022 in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals must be read together with the present order.

This distinction is important because the present one-page order does not independently reproduce the detailed factual matrix, statutory controversy, or complete reasoning contained in the leading judgment.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783421911_1460compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.