Facts of the Case

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu filed Central Excise Appeal No. 251/2022, along with CM Nos. 5362/2022 and 5363/2022, before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu against Dabur India Limited, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan Lal.

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, wherein CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case.

The Court, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, found that no new ground was available to the appellant and that the matter stood squarely covered by the earlier decision.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether CEA No. 251/2022 raised any new or distinguishable ground requiring independent adjudication by the High Court.
  2. Whether the present appeal was similar and identical to the batch of Excise Appeals already considered and decided by the High Court through the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022.
  3. Whether the matter stood squarely covered by the earlier decision in CEA No. 10/2020, the leading case, and connected appeals.
  4. Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022.

Petitioner’s / Appellant’s Arguments

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu was represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.

The order records that the Court heard counsel for the appellant. However, the Court concluded that no new ground was available to the appellant.

Importantly, the brief order does not separately reproduce or elaborate upon any detailed factual or statutory submissions advanced by the appellant. Therefore, no additional argument beyond what is expressly reflected in the judicial order is attributed to the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent was Dabur India Limited, SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu.

The order records no appearance or detailed submissions on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, no specific argument can properly be attributed to the respondent beyond the contents expressly appearing in the order.

The Court determined the appeal after hearing counsel for the appellant and applying the earlier decision governing identical Excise Appeals.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court made the following findings:

  1. The present appeal was similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals already considered and decided by the Court.
  2. Those earlier appeals had been decided through the judgment and order dated 23 May 2022.
  3. CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case in the earlier batch of appeals.
  4. After hearing counsel for the appellant, the Court found that no new ground was available to the appellant.
  5. The matter stood squarely covered by the earlier decision.
  6. Consequently, CEA No. 251/2022 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 appeal on the same terms and conditions as laid down in its earlier judgment and order dated 23 May 2022 in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

Important Clarification

The present order is a short consequential order applying an earlier binding decision to an appeal found to be similar and identical.

The principal clarification emerging from the order is that where:

  • an appeal is similar and identical to matters already adjudicated;
  • the controversy stands squarely covered by an earlier decision; and
  • no new ground is available to the appellant,

the Court may dispose of the subsequent appeal in accordance with the earlier governing judgment rather than independently re-adjudicating the same covered controversy.

It is also important to clarify that the present order does not independently reproduce the complete factual controversy, detailed statutory questions, or the full reasoning contained in the judgment dated 23 May 2022. Instead, it expressly adopts the outcome by dismissing the appeal on the same terms and conditions as the earlier decision in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals.

Section Involved

Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Appeal to the High Court

The matter was instituted as a Central Excise Appeal before the High Court. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the statutory provision governing appeals to the High Court from specified orders of the Appellate Tribunal where the case involves a substantial question of law, subject to the statutory scheme and exclusions contained in the Act.

Central Excise Act, 1944

The dispute falls within the framework of Central Excise appellate proceedings. However, the one-page order does not expressly reproduce a specific statutory section or independently formulate a substantial question of law. Therefore, the section reference should be read in the context of the appellate nature of the proceedings and should not be treated as an express statutory finding recorded in the order itself.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783311928_987compressed.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.