1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8185 OF 2009 Tata Motors Ltd. ) a Company incorporated under the ) Companies Act, 1956 and having its ) Registered Office at Bombay House ) 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400 001. ).. Petitiioners Vs. 1. The Union of India through the ) Secretary, Ministry of Finance ) Department of Revenue North ) Block, New Delhi 110 001. ) 2. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax ) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal ) Bnch, Jai Centre, P.D.`Mello Road, ) Poona Street, Masjid (E), ) Mumbai 400 009. ) 3. Commissioner of Central Excise ) (Appeals) Pune-I Commissionerate ) F Wing, 3rd floor, 41A ICE House ) Sassoon Road, Pune 411 001. ) 4. The Commissioner of Central ) Excise, Pune -I, having his office ) at 41A ICE House, Sassoon Road, ) Pune 411 001. ) 5. The Joint Commissioner of Central ) Excise Pune- I, having his office ) at 41A ICE House, Sassoon Road, ) Pune 411 001. )..Respondents 2 Mr. V.Sreedharan i./b. PDS Legal, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Pardeshi, for respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 19th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER FERDINO I.REBELLO,J.) 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners in the instant case are aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal dated 11.8.2009, whereby the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioners here to deposit the full amount of duty. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have availed of Cenvat Credit in respect of job work done by them. The issue, it is pointed out, is fully covered by the Judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. which was also pertaining to job work. The Judgment of the Tribunal was taken i appeal by the Revenue to this Court in Central Excise Appeal No.76 of 2008. This Court by order dated 13.8.2008, observed that the learned Tribunal had relied on the Judgment in Escorts Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported in 2004 (174) ELT 145 (S.C.) and that nothing was pointed out to the Court as to why the Judgment could not be 3 applied and accordingly held that no question of law arises and consequently dismissed the appeal. 4. In a subsequent matter in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Mahindra Ugne Steel Co.Ltd. Central Excise Appeal No.40 of 2009, dated 10.6.2009,considering that another Bench of this Court in M/s. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. had approved the Judgment of the Full Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The law therefore it now stands. All Courts and Tribunals within the jurisdiction of this Court are bound to follow the law as laid down by this Court. The law as settled is that even in respect of job work where the final product is dutiable, Cenvat Credit can be availed of. 5. The issue before the Tribunal was the same as was in issue in Sterlite Industries which has been upheld by this Court. The learned Tribunal, at the admission stage, for the purpose of pre-deposit, proceeded to consider the Judgment in Amrit Paper vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana 2008 (12) S.T.R. 536 (S.C.) A perusal of that Judgment would show that the final product was exempt from duty and consequently the learned Supreme court held that the manufacturer could not have availed of Cenvat Credit. The issue of a job work was not in issue in Amrit Paper (supra). Prima facie, the law in Amrit 4 Paper (supra) could not have been applied in a case of job work and more so at the stage of pre-deposit. 6. We are at pains to understand the approach of the learned Tribunal. Judgments of higher Courts considering judicial discipline have to be followed by the Courts subordinate to the higher court. Failure to do so would result in judicial mayhem. Subordinate courts are bound to follow the judgments unless there be a subsequent judgment of a Higher Court which has taken a view different from the view earlier expressed. In this case we find that the Judgment in the case of Amrit paper (supra) cannot be said to have decided the controversy of availing of Cenvat Credit for job work. 7. In the light of that, considering the Judgments of this Court, as the petitioners have strong prima facie case, and the law decided by the Supreme Court was of pre-deposit, the impugned order is set aside. There will be no pre- deposit. The petitioners are directed to give bond for the amount. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)