E I D PARRY (INDIA) LTD, REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER, GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is preferred against the Order-in-Original No.07/JOINTCOMMR/CE/2018, dated 14.02.2018, denying the CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 1,74,08,326/- statutorily availed by the petitioner during the period from April,. 2015 to March, 2016 in complete violation of judicial discipline and principles of natural justice.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Order-in-Original was passed relying on a stay order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Thyssenkrupp Industries (P) Ltd., Vs. CCE, Pune [2014-TIOL-1825-CESTAT-MUM]. According to the petitioner, it is a cardinal legal principle that the interim orders are not a binding precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, (2000) 4 SCC 440], has held that it is settled law that interim orders, even though they may have been confirmed by the higher courts, never bind and do not prevent passing of contrary order at the stage of final hearing.

(3.) On the other hand, the Tribunal also failed to follow the binding precedents in respect of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and decided contrary to the dictum laid down. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the authority has acted in flagrant disregard to law or rules or procedure or acted in violation of principles of natural justice, which resulted in failure of justice. Therefore, he is entitled to maintain the Writ Petition.