2013 (12) TMI 1484 - HC - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - GTA Service - Tribunal followed the decision of ABB Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Revenue contends that against the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s ABB Limited (Supra) the revenue is before the Hon ble Supreme Court - Held that - it is required to be noted that apart from the fact that nothing is on record that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. ABB Limited (Supra) has been stayed or not. There is a binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt Ltd (Supra) and nothing has been pointed out whether against the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt Ltd (supra) the department has approached the Hon ble Supreme Court or not. It is not in dispute that as such the controversy in question is as such covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Part Poly Wooven Pvt Ltd (2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). - No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned judgment and order by Commissioner Central Excise and Customs. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents by the learned Tribunal. Admissibility of the present appeal based on binding decisions.

Analysis:
The present appeal before the Gujarat High Court involves a challenge by the Commissioner Central Excise and Customs against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents, including a case from the Karnataka High Court and a decision from the Gujarat High Court. The appellant's advocate argued that the decision of the Karnataka High Court is pending in the Supreme Court, but there is no information regarding a stay on that decision. The High Court noted that there is a binding decision by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a similar case, which has not been challenged by the department in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the controversy in question is already settled against the revenue by the Gujarat High Court's decision.

The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, concluded that the learned Tribunal did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the binding decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a similar case, which was not challenged further. As a result, the High Court found no question of law, let alone any substantial question of law, arising in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal by the Commissioner Central Excise and Customs was not admitted, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the legal precedents and the binding decision of the Gujarat High Court.