Principal Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi v. Climax Filter Components Pvt. Ltd.

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CEAC 18/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nandini Singla, Proxy Counsel for Ms. K. Anatoli Sema, Adv.

versus CLIMAX FILTER COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Parmil Kumar & Mr. Anil Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 06.08.2018 The question of law urged by the Revenue in its appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) fell into error in rejecting its appeal in upholding the relief of Cenvat credit, to the assessee. The assessee did not discharge its duty liability under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules which resulted in demand of duty with interest and a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order, resulting in the utilization of Cenvat credit during the defaulted period. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Gujarat High Court's ruling in M/s. Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) [2014 (310) ELT 833(Guj.)] which was subsequently followed by the CESTAT.

CEAC 18/2017

The Revenue did not dispute that this Court has also followed Indsur Global (supra), however, learned counsel urges that the Gujarat High Court's ruling has now been subjected to an interim stay by the Supreme Court which has entertained the appeal. This argument too did not find favour by this Court. It is well known that even though the ultimate result might differ or might be subjected to "operation of stay", the reasoning underlining the decision can always be looked into and relied upon, in subsequent cases, if the circumstances so warrant.

Having regard to the above, the Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises.

The appeal is rejected.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J AUGUST 06, 2018/akv CEAC 18/2017