Binding precedent continues despite larger Bench reference; CESTAT could decide Cenvat credit dispute under existing law.

Existing Supreme Court decisions remain binding until overruled, and a mere reference to a larger Bench does not suspend their operation or require every connected matter to be kept in abeyance. Applying that principle, the CESTAT was entitled to decide the appeal on the law then in force, including the ruling that inputs used as fuel are not eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The challenge accordingly disclosed no substantial question of law, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether CESTAT erred in relying upon binding Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding that those decisions had been referred to a larger Bench, and whether the appeal ought to have been kept pending till the reference was decided.

Analysis: The binding force of existing Supreme Court decisions continues until they are overruled, and mere pendency of a reference to a larger Bench does not suspend the operation of the law declared. The Court relied on the principle that disputes should not remain in suspended animation and that pending reference does not justify keeping every connected matter in abeyance. On the merits, the cited decisions had held that inputs used as fuel are not eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

Conclusion: CESTAT committed no error in deciding the appeal on the basis of the then-existing law, and the challenge raised no substantial question of law. The appeal failed.

---