Facts of the Case

The appellant, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed Central Excise Appeal (CEA) No. 410/2022 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, EPIP Kartholi, Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

The Revenue sought consideration of issues already adjudicated by the High Court in its earlier common judgment dated 23.05.2022 rendered in CEA No. 10/2020 (leading case) along with connected appeals. The Court examined whether any fresh or distinguishable ground existed to warrant reconsideration of the matter.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Revenue appeal raised any new or distinguishable question requiring independent adjudication.
  2. Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed as being fully covered by the earlier judgment of the High Court in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected matters.

 

Petitioner’s (Revenue) Arguments

  • The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise challenged the impugned order by filing the present Central Excise Appeal before the High Court.
  • The appellant sought adjudication of the issues involved in the appeal despite the existence of an earlier judgment covering similar matters.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The respondent's appearance was not recorded in the order.
  • The Court independently examined the maintainability of the appeal in light of its earlier binding judgment and found that the controversy was already settled.

 

Court Order / Findings

The High Court held that:

  • The present appeal was similar and identical to several earlier Central Excise Appeals already decided by the Court.
  • The controversy stood squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.05.2022 in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.
  • The Revenue failed to demonstrate any new ground requiring reconsideration.
  • Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the earlier judgment dated 23.05.2022.

 

Important Clarification

  • Where a legal issue has already been conclusively decided by the High Court and no fresh or distinguishable ground is raised, subsequent appeals involving identical questions are liable to be dismissed by following the earlier precedent.
  • The judgment reiterates the principle of judicial consistency and adherence to binding precedents.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Appeal to the High Court.
  • Relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governing appellate jurisdiction.

 

Link to download the order -
https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782970629_122compressed.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.