Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hitachi Home And Life Solutions INDIA LTD Mehsana Gujrat

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals that have been considered and decided by the Court previously, specifically referencing the judgment and order dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The Court found that no new grounds were available to the appellant, meaning the appeal was squarely covered by the established precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that appeals presenting identical facts and legal issues, without new grounds, will be dismissed in line with previous binding decisions of the same court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu, filed an appeal against M/s Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India. The appeal was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court. The leading case among these was CEA No. 10 of 2020, decided on May 23, 2022. The petitioner's counsel was heard, and the Court noted that no new grounds were presented by the appellant. The matter was deemed to be squarely covered by the prior judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the previous judgment of this Court dated May 23, 2022, in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that no new grounds have been presented by the appellant. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the present appeal is identical to several other Excise Appeals that have already been decided by the Court. They contended that since no new grounds are available, the matter is squarely covered by the precedent set in CEA No. 10/2020. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, as reflected in the prior judgments, was upheld.