9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1755 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - input services - justification of Rule 8 (3A) - Held that - The issue decided in the case of Commissioner Customs Central Excise & Service Tax Ujjain v. Vikram Cement Limited 2018 (8) TMI 68 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it was held that An order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower Court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself i.e. its reasoning - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
- Appeal against the denial of CENVAT credit on input and input services. - Applicability of previous judgments on similar issues. - Interpretation of Rule 8(3A) regarding CENVAT credit. - Effect of interim orders on the applicability of legal judgments. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the denial of CENVAT credit on input and input services by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that the issue was similar to a previous order dated 31.01.2018 in another case (Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016), and therefore, the present appeal should be decided based on that order. 2. The previous order (Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016) involved a case where the Revenue challenged the allowance of CENVAT credit to a cement manufacturer. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the credit on input services intimately connected with the manufacturing process. The Tribunal cited various High Court decisions to support its ruling, emphasizing that denial of credit for such services was not legally sustainable. 3. The appellant raised the issue of a pending appeal before the Supreme Court in a separate case, arguing that until a final decision was reached, the issue could not be considered settled. However, the Court noted that the law on the matter had been well-established by various High Court judgments, including the interpretation of Rule 8(3A) regarding the indefeasible nature of CENVAT credit once validly taken. 4. The Court addressed the effect of interim orders on the applicability of legal judgments, citing a Supreme Court observation that staying the operation of an order did not erase the underlying reasoning of the judgment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the law on the issue was settled by previous judgments, and no grounds existed to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to allow the CENVAT credit. 5. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The decision of the previous case (Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016) was applied mutatis mutandis to the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal as well.
|
