TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of application of the amended definition - credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/87504/2015 - A/85054/2018 - Dated:- 12-1-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Ajay Kumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) for appellant Shri Arun Jain, Advocate for respondent ORDER Appeal of Revenue against order-in-appeal no. CD/603/BEL/2015 dated 7th September 2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II disputes the setting aside of the order of the original authority who had denied CENVAT credit of ₹ 11,68,121 availed by M/s Gandhar Oil Refinery India Ltd in 2010-11 and 2011-12 on steel products, such as angles, channels, plates, bars, coils and roof sheeting, used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for construction of shed, building or structure for support of capital goods were never intended to be included by the rule making authority under the expression input eligible for Cenvat credit. Hence, the argument that the rule making authority had used the general rule making power under Section 37(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to extend Cenvat credit in respect of the impugned items to carry out the general purpose of the Act must be dispelled. When it is clear from the Explanatory Memorandum etc. that the Government never intended to allow Cenvat credit on the impugned items, it cannot be argued that the Government had used its general powers under Section 37(1), in excess of the specific powers under Section 37(2)(xvia) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. The same cannot be said of decisions of the Hon ble High Courts and of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Of particular import is the observation of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in CEAT Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Nashik [2015 (317) ELT 192 (Bom.)] 34. Before parting, we would reproduce the following conclusion in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The attention of the Tribunal was invited to the order passed by it in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. and Tata Motors Ltd. and further the order of this Court upholding the same. Yet, the Tribunal observes as under :- We also note that the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. and Tata Motors Ltd. which were upheld by Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... add and as was said in Cassel and Co. Ltd. v. Broome - (1972) A.C. 1027, we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that in the hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the High Court, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. It is inevitable in a hierarchical system of Courts that there are decisions of the Supreme Appellate Tribunal which do not attract the unanimous approval of all members of the judiciary.... But the judicial system only works if someone is allowed to have the last word and that last word, once spoken, is loyally accepted. The better wisdom of the Court below must yield to the higher wisdom of the Court above. That is the stre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
