2015 (10) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Applicable precedent - Held that - Admittedly, the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd (2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) is against the applicant and the Hon ble Supreme Court had not granted any stay and the said decision is in force and binding on this Bench. Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sushil Agarwal (2012 (12) TMI 49 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) made the observation without going into the facts in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd (2004 (2) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). It is noted that a judgement has to be read in the context of its facts and it is not permissible to pick and choose certain words from the judgement and it cannot be a precedent. - No merit in application filed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
Application for Modification or Stay Order to waive pre-deposit entirely based on precedent, Prima facie case against the applicant due to High Court decision, Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on High Court judgments, Interpretation of precedent in the context of facts, Merit of the application for Modification of Stay Order.

Issue 1: Application for Modification or Stay Order based on precedent
The applicant sought to waive the pre-deposit entirely, arguing that the Stay Order was influenced by a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a specific case. The applicant contended that since the appeal against the said decision was admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision could not serve as a precedent. The applicant relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a different case to support their claim for unconditional stay.

Issue 2: Prima facie case against the applicant due to High Court decision
The Revenue's Authorized Representative highlighted that the Tribunal consistently directed partial pre-deposit in similar cases following the High Court's decision. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision formed the basis for the prima facie case against the applicant. The Tribunal found that the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty indicated a case against the applicant, leading to the direction for a specific pre-deposit amount.

Issue 3: Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on High Court judgments
The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the law declared by the highest court in the State on authorities and Tribunals under its superintendence. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the High Court decision should not be considered due to the pending appeal before the Supreme Court. It was held that once the Supreme Court sets aside a High Court decision, the latter ceases to be good law.

Issue 4: Interpretation of precedent in the context of facts
The Tribunal discussed the reliance on a specific Supreme Court decision regarding the doctrine of merger and the continuation of a suit post-appeal. The Tribunal differentiated between the facts of the present case and the case cited by the applicant, emphasizing that judgments should be considered in their factual contexts. The Tribunal scrutinized the application of precedent and the relevance of specific decisions in determining the outcome of the case.

Issue 5: Merit of the application for Modification of Stay Order
After evaluating the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's request for modification of the Stay Order to waive pre-deposit entirely. The Tribunal dismissed the application and extended the compliance period upon the Advocate's request. The Tribunal concluded that the application lacked merit, considering the legal principles, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD covers the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to dismiss the application for Modification of Stay Order.

← Previous Next →