M/S L and T Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S L and T Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs the… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned CESTAT Final Order No. 20277 dated 10.08.2022 (in Appeal No. E25288/2013) set at naught; matter remanded for consideration afresh with all contentions of the parties kept open; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's (CESTAT) Final Order No. 20277 dated 10.08.2022 in Appeal No. E25288/2013, to the extent adverse to the appellant-assessee, should be set aside and the matter remanded, consistently with the relief granted the same day in CEA No.1/2023 between the same parties.

Court's answer

Like cases should be decided alike unless special circumstances attending them warrant deviation from the settled path; no such circumstance is demonstrated from the records.

Ratio / Principle

Whatever relief was accorded to the very same assessee in CEA No.1/2023 needs to be extended to it in this appeal too, on the principle of parity.

Key takeaways

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the CESTAT is set at naught.ratio¶29
The matter is remanded for consideration afresh, all contentions of the parties having been kept open; no costs awarded.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Central Excise Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by M/s L and T Construction Equipment Ltd (formerly L and T Komatsu Ltd) against the Tribunal's (CESTAT) Final Order No. 20277 dated 10.08.2022 in Appeal No. E25288/2013, which had substantially negatived its appeal. The High Court of Karnataka (Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar, JJ.; oral judgment per Krishna S Dixit, J.) noted that the fact matrix and applicable law were substantially similar to CEA No.1/2023 between the same parties, decided by the same Bench the same day, wherein the CESTAT order had been set aside and the matter remanded with all contentions kept open. Holding that like cases should be decided alike absent special circumstances warranting deviation, and that no such circumstance was demonstrated, the Court extended the same relief on the principle of parity: the appeal was allowed, the impugned CESTAT order was set at naught, and the matter was remanded for consideration afresh with all contentions of the parties kept open. No costs.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10234-DB CEA No. 5 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

M/S L AND T CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD (FORMALLY KNOWN AS L AND T KOMATSU LTD) COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT OF 1956 27/28, THAMMASHETTIHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL, PIN-561 203

REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS MR. L. SRIVATHSAN S/O LAKSHMINARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MOHAN MAIYA G.L AND SRI. PRITHWIRAJ CHOUDURI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE NORTH COMMISSIONERATE NO.59, HMT BHAVAN GROUND FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10234-DB CEA No. 5 of 2023

THIS CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED IN PARAGRAPH 55 TO 63 OR SUCH OTHER QUESTION OR QUESTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY FORMULATE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER NO. 20277 (PASSED IN COMMON ORDER NO. 20273-20280) DATED 10.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. E25288/2013 TO THE EXTENT IT IS ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 calling in question

CESTAT order dated 10.08.2022 whereby his Appeal No.E25288/2013 is substantially negatived.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10234-DB CEA No. 5 of 2023

We have heard the learned Sr.Advocate Mr.Uday Holla appearing for the assessee and learned Sr.Panel Counsel representing the Revenue. The fact matrix and law applicable to this case are substantially similar to the one in CEA No.1/2023 between the same parties, decided by us this day. We have set aside the CESTAT order that was challenged in the said appeal and remanded the matter for consideration afresh, keeping open all contentions of the parties.

It hardly needs to be stated that like cases should be decided alike unless special circumstances attending the same warrant deviation from the settled path. No such circumstance is demonstrated from the records. Therefore, whatever relief we have accorded to the very same assessee needs to be extended to him in this appeal too on the principle of parity.

In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed; impugned order of the CESTAT having been set at naught,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10234-DB CEA No. 5 of 2023

matter is remanded for consideration afresh, all

contentions of the parties having been kept open.

No costs.

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

AM