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

Held

The Court held that the present appeal is similar and identical to several other Excise Appeals that were previously considered and decided by the Court in its judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022, with CEA No. 10 of 2020 being the leading case. Having heard the counsel for the appellant, the Court was of the opinion that as no new ground was available to the appellant, the matter stands squarely covered by the aforementioned decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals identical to previously decided ones, without new grounds, will be dismissed based on the prior ruling.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K Jammu (Appellant) filed an appeal against M/s Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd. (Respondent). The appeal was identical to several other Excise Appeals previously considered and decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh vide a judgment dated 23rd May 2022, where CEA No. 10 of 2020 was the leading case. The appellant's counsel was heard, and the Court found no new grounds for the appellant. The matter was considered squarely covered by the previous decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal is covered by the judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed in CEA No. 10/2020 and connected appeals, given that the present appeal is similar and identical to those cases and no new grounds are available to the appellant. Appellant's contention: The appellant argued that the present appeal is identical to previous appeals decided by this Court and that no new grounds are available. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, as represented by the prior ruling, was upheld.