Commissioner, Central GST And Cx vs. M/S Sarda Plywood Industries LTD

Held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. The Revenue's counsel fairly conceded that on the very point in question, there was already a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I - 2016 (41) STR 577 (Bombay). The Court also noted, as observed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, that the assessee had reversed the Cenvat credit immediately upon receipt of the show cause notice. In view of the binding decision of the Bombay High Court and the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court appeal on a question of law will be dismissed if there is a binding precedent from another High Court on the same issue, especially when conceded by the appellant's counsel, and if the assessee has already taken remedial action.

Facts

The Revenue, Commissioner, Central GST and CX, filed a Tax Appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order dated October 11, 2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal concerned M/s Sarda Plywood Industries Ltd. The CESTAT's order was in Appeal No. E/10247/2017. The Revenue's appeal proposed a question of law regarding the Tribunal's reliance on a decision from the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd., noting that the department had filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court in that matter, which was pending. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the Bombay High Court had already ruled on the very point in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune-I.

Key Issues

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to rely upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd., when the department had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Central Excise Appeal No. 162 of 2016) which was still pending, and hence the matter was required to be contested on the grounds mentioned by the department? Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): The Tribunal erred in relying on the Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. decision because the department had filed a pending appeal before the Bombay High Court on the same issue, implying the matter was still contestable. The Revenue sought to contest the matter on its stated grounds. Respondent (Assessee): The judgment records no specific arguments made by the assessee. However, it notes that the assessee had reversed the Cenvat credit immediately upon receipt of the show cause notice.