2018 (2) TMI 921 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - grant of stay - Section 35-G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - 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 dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on input and input services.
2. Applicability of previous judgment in a similar case.
3. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Legal sustainability of denial of credit for certain services.
5. Effect of pending appeal on the finality of the issue.
6. Admissibility of CENVAT credit and penalty imposition.
7. Impact of High Court judgments on CENVAT credit claims.
8. Law declared in previous judgments and its applicability.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the denial of CENVAT credit on input and input services. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal before the High Court. The issue was found to be covered by a previous order in a similar case, which was cited to dispose of the present appeal.

2. The judgment in Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016 involved a case where CENVAT Credit was denied on certain input services to a cement manufacturer. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the credit, citing various High Court decisions supporting the admissibility of such credits. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal sustainability of denying credit for these services.

3. The interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial in determining the admissibility of the credit. The Tribunal's decision was supported by previous judgments from different High Courts, emphasizing the indefeasibility of credit once validly taken, unless illegally or irregularly obtained.

4. The impact of pending appeals on the finality of the issue was discussed, with reference to a case before the Delhi High Court. The Court's reasoning on the effect of interim orders on judgments was highlighted to clarify the status of appeals and the applicability of previous decisions.

5. The judgment emphasized the admissibility of CENVAT credit and the penalty imposition, citing the Gujarat High Court's reasoning on the unreasonableness of certain restrictions under the Rule. The High Court's decision was upheld by various other High Courts, reinforcing the validity of the credit claims.

6. The legal sustainability of denying credit for certain services was a key point of contention, with the High Court affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the reasoning provided in previous judgments. The law declared in these judgments was deemed applicable and binding on the present case.

7. The judgment highlighted the well-settled nature of the law on the issue as established by various High Courts. No substantial question of law was found to arise in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Central Excise Appeal filed by the Revenue.

8. The judgment reiterated the applicability of the previous decision in Central Excise Appeal No.32/2016 to the present case, emphasizing the mutatis mutandis application of the earlier ruling. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was based on the well-established legal principles and precedents set by the High Courts.