2009 (11) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have availed of Cenvat Credit in respect of job work done by them. The issue, it is pointed out, is fully covered by the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. and appeal there against dismissed by High Court - The law as settled is that even in respect of job work where the final product is dutiable, Cenvat Credit can be availed of. All Courts and Tribunal within the jurisdiction of HC bound to follow law laid down by that High Court - the petitioners have strong prima facie case - There will be no pre-deposit. The petitioners are directed to give bond for the amount - considering judicial discipline, Subordinate courts are bound to follow the judgments of higher courts - Failure to do so would result in judicial mayhem. Subordinate courts are bound to follow the judgments unless there be a subsequent judgment of a Higher Court which has taken a view different from the view earlier expressed petition is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order directing deposit of duty amount.
2. Availment of Cenvat Credit for job work.
3. Application of precedents - Sterlite Industries and Amrit Paper.
4. Judicial discipline and following higher court judgments.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners challenged the order of the Tribunal directing them to deposit the full duty amount. They contended that they had availed Cenvat Credit for job work, a matter covered by the Full Bench judgment in Sterlite Industries. The Tribunal's reliance on a different judgment for pre-deposit was questioned.

2. The law established through various judgments, including the one in Sterlite Industries, allowed for the availing of Cenvat Credit even for job work resulting in dutiable final products. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's decision to consider a judgment where the final product was duty exempt for pre-deposit was incorrect in the context of job work.

3. The High Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the obligation of subordinate courts to follow higher court judgments unless a conflicting judgment exists. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not adhering to the precedent set by the Supreme Court and other higher courts regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit for job work.

4. Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, noting the petitioners' strong prima facie case and the incorrect application of the judgment related to duty-exempt final products for pre-deposit purposes. The petitioners were directed to provide a bond instead of making a pre-deposit, with the Court asserting that the law established by higher courts should be followed to avoid judicial chaos.