Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2000 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common inputs and input services used for taxable as well as exempt services - failure to maintain separate accounts for common inputs and input services - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Mere pendency of the SLP would not obliterate the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court; and the decision rendered therein would be binding on a co-ordinate Bench. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding duty payment on cement cleared to SEZ developer without payment of duty. 2. Liability to pay 10% duty due to failure to maintain separate accounts for common inputs and input services. 3. Interpretation of relevant judgments by CESTAT and High Court in similar cases. 4. Effect of pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Revenue on the current appeal. Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the clearance of cement to an SEZ developer without payment of duty. The respondent availed Cenvat credit on common inputs and input services, leading to a show cause notice being issued. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposed duty, holding the assessee liable to pay 10% duty on the value of cement cleared to the SEZ developer. Issue 2: The Tribunal based its decision on a judgment by CESTAT, Bangalore in a similar case involving Sujana Metal Products Ltd. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the judgment of the High Court in Commissioner v. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. The liability to pay 10% duty was imposed due to the failure to maintain separate accounts for common inputs and input services. Issue 3: It was acknowledged by the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax that the appeal was covered in favor of the assessee by the High Court's judgment in Commissioner v. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. The Counsel mentioned that the Revenue had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending. The law declared by the High Court was considered binding on a co-ordinate Bench, and as the question of law in the current appeal was covered by the previous judgment, the appeal was dismissed following the precedent set in Commissioner v. Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Issue 4: The mere pendency of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue did not negate the law declared by the High Court. The decision rendered by the High Court was deemed binding on a co-ordinate Bench. Since it was undisputed that the question of law in the current appeal was covered by the previous judgment of the High Court, the appeal was dismissed accordingly. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
|