Case: M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. And Ors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes &amp; Ors

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal Nos. 3481-3492 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions in which the appellant challenged the assessment orders levying service tax, on the ground of alternative remedy available by way of statutory appeal, assessee - M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. has preferred the present appeals – Civil Appeal Nos. 8673-8684 of 2013.3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 2008 by which, relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders Vs. Union of India, (2013) 32 STR 673 (Delhi), which is the subject matter before this Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014, the Division Bench has dismissed the said writ petition and has held that it is only the service element, which is to be taxed, the original writ petitioner – assessee – YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2014.3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 13.11.2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4107 of 2008 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, the assessee – G.D. Builders has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014.At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited, (2016) 1 SCC 170,  this Court has specifically overruled the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) and has observed and held that the observations made by the Delhi High Court in paragraph 31 is wholly inaccurate in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible works contracts.At this stage, it is reported that as such Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014, now under consideration was also heard alongwith the group of appeals while deciding the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) and even the papers of Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 were called for by the Bench concerned. However, it appears that by oversight and/or by inadvertence Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 has not been decided and disposed of and therefore kept pending, which is now notified before this Court alongwith the other appeals.3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 09.01.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6803 of 2013 by which the Division Bench of the High Court relying upon its earlier decision in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) has dismissed the said writ petition, the assessee – original writ petitioner – M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) has preferred the present Civil appeal No. 6526 of 2014.3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 13.11.2013 in Writ Petition No. 5046 of 2008 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition alongwith another writ petition in the case of G.D. Builders (supra), the assessee – M/s. Unitech Ltd. has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2666 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 36206 of 2014.3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Guwahati High Court dated 04.06.2012 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 5676 and 5678 of 2012, the original writ petitioner – assessee – NBCC has preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 4547-4548 of 2014.3.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Service Tax Stay No. 59278 of 2013 in S.T. Appeal No. 58658 of 2013, the assessee – M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 21828 of 2015.3.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench in Appeal No. ST/275 of 2006, the Revenue has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2010.3.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2015 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai in ST/Stay/3022/12-Mum in S.T. Appeal No. 873 of 2012, the assessee – M/s. L&T, Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. (previously known as Larsen & Toubro Ltd.) has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 32501 of 2015.

Reasoning: 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the very issue had been considered by this Court in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala Vs. Larsen and Toubro Limited, (2016) 1 SCC 170 . In the aforesaid decision, after considering the entire scheme of levy of service tax pre-2007 and post-2007, this Court has specifically observed and held that on indivisible works contracts, for the period prior to introduction of Finance Act, 2007, service tax was not leviable under Finance Act, 1994. It is specifically observed and held that works contracts on which the service tax was levied under the Finance Act, 1994 is distinct from contracts of service.10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that whether post-2007, the service tax was leviable on Composite Works Contracts is now no longer res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited, (supra).10.2 While appreciating the prayer/submission made on behalf of the Revenue to re-consider the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) and to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, few facts are required to be taken into consideration, which are as under:-(i) The decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) has been delivered/passed in the year 2015, in which, it is specifically observed and held that on indivisible works contracts for the period pre-Finance Act, 2007, the service tax was not leviable;(ii) After considering the entire scheme and the levy of service tax pre-Finance Act, 2007 and after giving cogent reasons, a conscious decision has been taken by this Court holding that the service tax was not leviable pre-Finance Act, 2007 on indivisible/Composite Works Contracts;(iii) While holding that for the period pre-Finance Act, 2007, on indivisible/Composite Works Contracts, the service tax is not leviable, number of decisions have been dealt with and considered by this Court in the aforesaid decision;(iv) That subsequently, the decision of this court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) has been followed and considered by this Court in the case of Bhayana Builders Private Limited and Ors., (supra);(v) That after the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) rendered in the year 2015, the said decision has been consistently followed by various High Courts and the Tribunals;(vi) The decisions of the various High Courts and the Tribunals, which were passed after following the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) have attained finality and in many cases, the Revenue has not challenged the said decisions;(vii) No efforts were made by the Revenue to file any review application to review and/or recall the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra). If the Revenue was so serious in their view that decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) requires re-consideration, Revenue ought to have filed the review application at that stage and/or even thereafter. No such review application has been filed even as on today.(viii) Merely because in the subsequent cases, the amount of tax involved may be higher, cannot be a ground to pray for re- consideration of the earlier binding decision, which has been consistently followed by various High Courts and the Tribunals in the entire country.10.3 Keeping in mind the aforesaid factual aspects, the prayer made on behalf of Revenue to re-consider the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) and to refer the matter to the Larger Bench is required to be considered.10.4 While considering the prayer made on behalf of the Revenue to review and/or revisit the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), few decisions on the principle of stare decisis are required to be referred to and considered.10.5 In the case of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. Chief Minister and Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 1,  after considering the earlier decision of the Seven Judge Constitution Bench in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad, AIR 1965 SC 1636 , it is observed and held that before reviewing and revising its earlier decision the Court must satisfy itself whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of public good or for any other compelling reason and the Court must endeavour to maintain certainty and continuity in the interpretation of the law in the country.10.5.1 After discussing the law on the principle of stare decisis, it is observed and held that the relevance and significance of the principle of stare decisis have to be kept in mind and that in law, certainty, consistency and continuity are highly desirable features. While holding so, in paragraphs 453 to 456, it is observed and held as under:-453. The seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment in Keshav Mills [Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1965 SC 1636  : (1965) 2 SCR 908 ] has unanimously held that before reviewing and revising its earlier decision the Court must itself satisfy whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of public good or for any other compelling reason and the Court must endeavour to maintain a certainty and continuity in the interpretation of the law in the country.454. In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta [(2018) 10 SCC 396] , the prayer to refer the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212]  was rejected by the Constitution Bench relying on the law as laid down in Keshav Mills case [Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1965 SC 1636  : (1965) 2 SCR 908 ]. In para 9 the following has been laid down : (Jarnail Singh case [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396] , SCC pp. 410-11)9. Since we are asked to revisit a unanimous Constitution Bench judgment, it is important to bear in mind the admonition of the Constitution Bench judgment in Keshav Mills [Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1965 SC 1636  : (1965) 2 SCR 908 ]. This Court said : (SCR pp. 921-22 : AIR p. 1644, para 23)23. … in reviewing and revising its earlier decision, this Court should ask itself whether in the interests of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is necessary that the earlier decision should be revised. When this Court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under Article 141, binding on all courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this Court to introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided. That is not to say that if on a subsequent occasion, the Court is satisfied that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate to correct the error; but before a previous decision is pronounced to be plainly erroneous, the Court must be satisfied with a fair amount of unanimity amongst its members that a revision of the said view is fully justified. It is not possible or desirable, and in any case it would be inexpedient to lay down any principles which should govern the approach of the Court in dealing with the question of reviewing and revising its earlier decisions. It would always depend upon several relevant considerations — What is the nature of the infirmity or error on which a plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based? On the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the Court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provision, or was any previous decision of this Court bearing on the point not noticed? Is the Court hearing such plea fairly unanimous that there is such an error in the earlier view? What would be the impact of the error on the general administration of law or on public good? Has the earlier decision been followed on subsequent occasions either by this Court or by the High Courts? And, would the reversal of the earlier decision lead to public inconvenience, hardship or mischief? These and other relevant considerations must be carefully borne in mind whenever this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to review and revise its earlier decisions. These considerations become still more significant when the earlier decision happens to be a unanimous decision of a Bench of five learned Judges of this Court.455. The principle of stare decisis also commends us not to accept the submissions of Shri Rohatgi. the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat [(2005) 8 SCC 534] , explaining the principle of stare decisis laid down the following in paras 111 and 118 : (SCC pp. 589 & 591)111. Stare decisis is a Latin phrase which means to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudication. This principle is expressed in the maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled. This was aptly put by Lord Coke in his classic English version as Those things which have been so often adjudged ought to rest in peace. However, according to Frankfurter, J., the doctrine of stare decisis is not an imprisonment of reason (Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edn. 2005, Vol. 4, P. 4456). The underlying logic of the doctrine is to maintain consistency and avoid uncertainty. The guiding philosophy is that a view which has held the field for a long time should not be disturbed only because another view is possible.118. The doctrine of stare decisis is generally to be adhered to, because well-settled principles of law founded on a series of authoritative pronouncements ought to be followed. Yet, the demands of the changed facts and circumstances, dictated by forceful factors supported by logic, amply justify the need for a fresh look.456. the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] speaking through B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. has held that the relevance and significance of the principle of stare decisis have to be kept in mind. It was reiterated that in law certainty, consistency and continuity are highly desirable features. Following are the exact words in para 683 : (SCC p. 657)683. … Though, we are sitting in a larger Bench, we have kept in mind the relevance and significance of the principle of stare decisis. We are conscious of the fact that in law certainty, consistency and continuity are highly desirable features. Where a decision has stood the test of time and has never been doubted, we have respected it … unless, of course, there are compelling and strong reasons to depart from it. Where, however, such uniformity is not found, we have tried to answer the question on principle keeping in mind the scheme and goal of our Constitution and the material placed before us.10.6 In the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2020) 4 SCC 1,  the Constitution Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the principle of stare decisis and the law of precedents/re- consideration/review of earlier decision. After considering the decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 234 (paragraph 22), it is observed and held by this Court that doctrines of precedents and stare decisis are the core values of our legal system. They form the tools which further the goal of certainty, stability and continuity in our legal system. When a decision is rendered by this Court, it acquires a reliance interest and the society organises itself based on the present legal order. By observing and holding so, it is observed in paragraphs 17 to 19 as under:-17. This Courts jurisprudence has shown that usually the courts do not overrule the established precedents unless there is a social, constitutional or economic change mandating such a development. The numbers themselves speak of restraint and the value this Court attaches to the doctrine of precedent. This Court regards the use of precedent as indispensable bedrock upon which this Court renders justice. The use of such precedents, to some extent, creates certainty upon which individuals can rely and conduct their affairs. It also creates a basis for the development of the rule of law. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts observed during his Senate confirmation hearing, It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even- handedness. [Congressional Record—Senate, Vol. 156, Pt. 7, 10018 (7-6-2010).]18. Doctrines of precedents and stare decisis are the core values of our legal system. They form the tools which further the goal of certainty, stability and continuity in our legal system. Arguably, Judges owe a duty to the concept of certainty of law, therefore they often justify their holdings by relying upon the established tenets of law.19. When a decision is rendered by this Court, it acquires a reliance interest and the society organises itself based on the present legal order. When substantial judicial time and resources are spent on references, the same should not be made in a casual or cavalier manner. It is only when a proposition is contradicted by a subsequent judgment of the same Bench, or it is shown that the proposition laid down has become unworkable or contrary to a well-established principle, that a reference will be made to a larger Bench. In this context, a five-Judge Bench of this Court in Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P. [(2002) 4 SCC 234] , after considering series of earlier rulings reiterated that : (SCC p. 245, para 22)22. … The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court.10.7 It is observed and held in the aforesaid decision that even the rule of overruling the judgments should be applied with great caution, and only when the previous decision is manifestly wrong, as, for instance, if it proceeded upon a mistaken assumption of the continuance of a repealed or expired Statute, or is contrary to a decision of another court which the court is bound to follow; not, upon a mere suggestion, that some or all of the members of the court might later arrive at a different conclusion if the matter was res integra. It is further observed that otherwise there would be great danger of want of continuity in the interpretation of law. It is further observed and held that the decisions rendered by a coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches of equal or lesser strength and a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench unless it is shown to be per incuriam.11.1 This Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. Jaswal, (2001) 1 SCC 748  has observed as under:-Consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. These rules and principles are based on public policy………The aforesaid observations are equally, if not more meaningful and relevant to tax matters.11.3 In K. Ajit Babu and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 473,  this Court again emphasized on the aspect of consistency, certainty and uniformity in the field of judicial decisions as it sets a pattern upon which future conduct may be based. One of the basic principles of the administration of justice is that identical/similar cases should be decided alike. This is the foundation of the doctrine of precedent, which has considerable benefits and advantages. Emphasis on the law of precedent, which promotes certainty and consistency, was also noticed in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija and Ors. Vs. Collector Thane, Maharashtra and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 396,  by emphasizing that it is the duty of the courts to make the law more predictable. Law must be made more effective as a guide to behaviour, otherwise, the lawyers or, for that matter, laymen would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise or conduct themselves. The general public should not be in a dilemma to obey or not to obey such law.11.4 In Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, (2011) 2 SCC 6014, the question before this Court was whether, physicians samples are excisable goods considering that they are prohibited from being sold under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Observing that since this Court has consistently held that the medical supplies supplied to the doctors are liable to excise duty, the issue involved in this case was no longer res integra. Relying on the Constitutional Bench decision in Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362,  it was held:43. It is settled law that this Court should follow an earlier decision that has withstood the changes in time, irrespective of the rationale of the view taken. It was held by a Constitution Bench in Waman Rao v. Union of India [(1981) 2 SCC 362] : (SCC p. 393, para 40)40. It is also true to say that for the application of the rule of stare decisis, it is not necessary that the earlier decision or decisions of longstanding should have considered and either accepted or rejected the particular argument which is advanced in the case on hand. Were it so, the previous decisions could more easily be treated as binding by applying the law of precedent and it will be unnecessary to take resort to the principle of stare decisis. It is, therefore, sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests or what is the basis of the decision. In other words, for the purpose of applying the rule of stare decisis, it is unnecessary to enquire or determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier decision which is said to operate as stare decisis.12. What was said by the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad, AIR 1965 SC 1636 , on the principle of stare decisis clearly bind us. The judgment of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) has stood the test of time and has never been doubted earlier. As observed hereinabove, the said decision has been followed consistently by this Court as well as by various High Courts and the Tribunals. Therefore, if the prayer made on behalf of the Revenue to re- consider and/or review the judgment of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) is accepted, in that case, it will affect so many other assesses in whose favour the decisions have already been taken relying upon and/or following the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) and It may unsettle the law, which has been consistently followed since 2015 onwards. There are all possibilities of contradictory orders. Therefore, on the principle of stare decisis, we are of the firm view that the judgment of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), neither needs to be revisited, nor referred to a Larger Bench of this Court as prayed, i.e., after a period of almost seven years and as observed hereinabove when no efforts were made to file any review application requesting to review the judgment on the grounds, which are now canvassed before this Court.13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that one of the appeals being Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 filed by M/s. G.D. Builders is against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 32 STR 673 (Delhi). It is to be noted that the said decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) has been specifically overruled by this court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra). The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) has been considered by this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra) in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38 and 39 and ultimately, this Court opined that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) is in fact contrary to a long line of decisions. It is further specifically observed and held that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) is wholly incorrect in its conclusion that the Finance Act, 1994 contains both the charge and machinery for levy and assessment of service tax on indivisible works contracts. It is reported that while deciding the group of matters in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), the papers of the appeal filed by M/s. G.D. Builders being Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 were also called and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the G.D. Builders was also heard. It appears that, however, the Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 filed by M/s. G.D. Builders against the decision of the Delhi High Court has not been specifically disposed of. Therefore, once the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra), which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 has been held to be wholly incorrect, Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2014 filed by M/s. G.D. Builders has to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court has to be quashed and set aside.13.1 Now, so far as Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 6526 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 2666 of 2022 are concerned, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the respective assesses relying upon its earlier decision in the case of G.D. Builders (supra). Once the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of G.D. Builders (supra) is held to be wholly incorrect by this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 6526 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 2666 of 2022 are also to be allowed.13.2 So far as Civil Appeal Nos. 8673-8684 of 2013 preferred by the assessee – M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. are concerned, the same are against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal Nos. 3481-3492 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions in which the appellant - assessee challenged the assessment orders levying Service Tax, on the ground of alternative remedy available by way of statutory appeal. However, in view of the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), the assessee is not liable to pay the service tax till the date of amendment of the provision on the indivisible/composite works contracts and therefore, the said appeals also deserve to be allowed and the assessment orders levying the service tax are to be set aside.13.3 Following the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), taking the view that for the period pre- Finance Act, 2007, service tax was not leviable on the indivisible/composite works contracts, the Civil Appeal Nos. 4547-4548 of 2014, Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2022 arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the Guwahati High Court and the respective decisions of the CESTAT passed against the respective assesses are also to be allowed.13.4 Now, so far as Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2010 preferred by the Revenue against the judgment and order passed by the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench in Appeal No. ST/275 of 2006 is concerned, in view of the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra), the same deserves to be dismissed.