9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] which has taken that particular view. This view of the Gujarat High Court is also contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [2013 (4) TMI 534 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the Madras High Court [2013 (12) TMI 1398 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that in case of default in payment of duty within due date and the defaults continues for a period beyond thirty days from the due date, the utilisation of Cenvat credit is nullity in law and therefore, the duty liability has to be discharged on the subsequent clearance in cash. Further in the Kashmi Conductors case cited [1997 (7) TMI 186 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], another Large Bench of this Tribunal has held that the decision of a High Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of Manjunatha Industries Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2014 (308) E.L.T. 7 (Kar.) and of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Unirols Airtex Vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2013 (296) ELT 449 (Mad). However, since the adjudicating authority did not follow this law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and allowed clearance of excisable goods during the default period by utilising the Cenvat credit, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration and passing of an order in accordance with law quantifying the duty demand liable to be paid in cash and also interest liability on the delayed payment of duty. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee, M/s. Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd., submits that there are two erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases cited supra, there is no error which requires rectification. He also relies on the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Kashmir Conductors - 1997 (96) ELT 257 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that the decision of a particular High Court should be certainly followed by all authorities within the territory jurisdiction of that High Court and that authorities in other states are not bound to follow the views taken by a particular High Court in the absence of a decision by the jurisdictional High Court with regard to constitutionality of a provision. Since the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal does not come within the purview of the Hon'ble Gujarat Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the duty liability has to be discharged on the subsequent clearance in cash. Further in the Kashmi Conductors case cited supra, another Large Bench of this Tribunal has held that the decision of a High Court is applicable only within the jurisdiction and not outside the jurisdiction. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant. 5.2 As regards the second contention that this Tribunal has gone beyond the proposition of the show-cause notice and the adjudication order, we have only interpreted the law with respect to the scope and applicability of Rule 8 (3A), in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Madras High Courts. We found that the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
