9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 68 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - several input services - justification of Rule 8 (3A) - Held that - The matter has been decided and appeal has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-I v. Space Telelink Limited 2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI 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. The law on the issue is well settled by various High Courts - no case for interference is made out - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services. 2. Legal sustainability of denial of credit for certain services. 3. Applicability of judgments from various High Courts and Supreme Court. 4. Impact of pending appeal before the Apex Court on the issue. 5. Interpretation of the law regarding the effect of interim orders on judgments. Analysis: 1. The case involved the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on input services availed by a cement manufacturer. The dispute arose when the department alleged that certain input services were not eligible for credit. The Original Authority dismissed a portion of the credit claimed, which was partially upheld by the First Appellate Authority. 2. The Revenue challenged the appellate order before the learned Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the input services were integral to the manufacturing process and should be allowed as credit. The Tribunal relied on various decisions from High Courts and the Supreme Court to support its conclusion that denial of credit for these services was not legally sustainable. 3. The Tribunal specifically referenced judgments from Gujarat, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana, and Madras High Courts, along with Supreme Court decisions, to establish a precedent for allowing such input services as eligible for CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal also highlighted a specific case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee. 4. The appellant contended that a related matter was pending before the Apex Court, and until a final decision was reached, the issue could not be considered conclusively settled. However, the Tribunal noted that the law on the matter had been well-established by various High Court judgments, indicating no need for interference with its decision. 5. The judgment further discussed the impact of interim orders on the validity of judgments. It clarified that staying the operation of an order did not erase the legal reasoning behind it, emphasizing that the underlying basis of a judgment remained intact despite interim actions. This clarification aimed to address the argument that pending appeals or stays could alter the legal standing of established judgments. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the disputed input services. The judgment underscored the settled legal position on the issue based on precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of legal reasoning in interpreting and applying judgments.
|
