TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority ought not have taken a contrary view / decision then the CBEC circular - decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding to the department rather than the circular issued by the CBEC. If there is any conflict between the jurisdictional High Court and the CBEC circular, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding to the department rather than CBEC circular. Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the appellant that the department has erred in taking contrary decision then the CBEC circular, cannot be accepted - Merely because, there might be a contrary decision of another High Court, is no ground to refer the matter to the Larger Bench against the decision of this Court - appellant would not be entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II Versus Cadila Health Care Ltd 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj)? C. Whether the Tribunal was justified in facts and law in passing the impugned order dated 1.3.2013 by overlooking the settled law that the CENVAT is a central levy imposed through an All India Statute and therefore, such a levy has to be collected uniformly from all similarly situated manufacturers located all throughout the country and if excise authority of a particular Commissionarate or State refuses to allow benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax on sales commission to manufacturers located in that Commissionarate or State but other manufacturers located elsewhere are allowed such CENVAT credit, then the said law and / or practice would be in utter violation of Article 14 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive in the definition of input service ? G. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the precedent orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court other coordinate benches of CESTAT in cases involving same definition of input services , the Tribunal was justified in mechanically allowing the appeal of revenue and restoring the order in original ? 2.0. That the appellant herein availed Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission Services obtained by them. That the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-I, Ankleshwar issued show cause notice on 30.7.2009 proposing recovery of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on commission for the period July 2008 to April 2009 along with interest. That the appellant file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has preferred the present appeal with the aforesaid proposed substantial question of law. 3.0. Shri S. Suriyanarayan, learned advocate has appeared with Shri Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and has vehemently submitted that in view of circular issued by CBEC dated 29.4.2011, the appellant shall be entitled to Cenvat Credit on Sales Commission Services obtained by them. It is further submitted that as such CBEC circular is binding to the department. It is submitted that therefore, the department could not have taken a contrary decision to the circular issued by the CBEC. Number of decisions have been relied upon by Shri S. Suriyanarayan, learned advocate for the appellant in support of his above submissions. 3.1. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit on Sales Commission Services obtained by them. As contended / submitted on behalf of the appellant, CBEC circular dated 29.4.2011 is binding to the department and therefore, while passing OIO the adjudicating authority ought not have taken a contrary view / decision then the CBEC circular. On interpretation of the relevant provision of law in the case of Cadila Health Care Limited (supra) jurisdictional High Court has held that on Sales Commission Services obtained by them, Cenvat credit is not permissible. It appears that while issuing the circular dated 29.4.2011, CBEC has not considered the decision of this Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Limited (supra). In any case, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional High Court and another of the other High Court, then the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding to the department and not the decision of another High Court. Under the circumstances, while passing OIO and while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned CESTAT has rightly relied upon the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Limited (supra). 6.0. Now, so far as request made by Shri S.Suriyanarayan, learned advocate for the appellant to refer the matter to the Larger Bench in view of the two contrary decisions one of this Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Limited (surpa) and another of Punjab and Hariyana High Court in the case of Ambica Overseas (supra) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
