2016 (11) TMI 911 - CESTAT BANGALORE - LB

Imposition of interest u/r 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty u/r 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules - wrongly availed Cenvat credit, reversed - scope of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (Rules, 2004) - Held that: - The decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] being the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and in the context of the fact that the entire cause of action, the transactions in issue, the territory within which the appellant-assessee conducts its business and has its registered office and whereat proceedings were initiated and culminated, constitutes the operative law, for the parties to this appeal. Though the Hon’ble High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Chhattisgarh are seen to have taken a contrary view, have distinguished and were not persuaded to accept the ratio expounded by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, this would not result in eclipse of the precedential vitality of the jurisdictional High Court’s ruling, since while a High Court is at liberty to distinguish a persuasive decision of another High Court, the same would not amount to an overruling of the said decision nor operates to operate eclipse` the precedential value of the other High Court’s ratio insofar as it applies as an exposition of law within the territorial limits of that High Court.

The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd.[2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] constitutes the law governing and operative on the facts and transactions in the current appeal. Since the appellant had merely availed credit and had reversed the same before utilizing the availed credit for remittance of duty, interest liability would not arise.