https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247201 CENVAT refund under Rule 5 could not be refused merely because the goods were supplied to a 100% EOU and not physically exported; the jurisdictional High Court had already treated such clearances as eligible for refund, making the contrary distinction unsustainable. The ruling also reaffirmed that subordinate quasi-judicial authorities must follow binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court even where the earlier judgment arose in another assessee's case. Disregard of binding precedent was criticised as contrary to judicial discipline, with the court noting that such conduct may attract civil contempt, although the contempt proceedings were closed on the facts stated. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247201 CENVAT refund under Rule 5 could not be refused merely because the goods were supplied to a 100% EOU and not physically exported; the jurisdictional High Court had already treated such clearances as eligible for refund, making the contrary distinction unsustainable. The ruling also reaffirmed that subordinate quasi-judicial authorities must follow binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court even where the earlier judgment arose in another assessee's case. Disregard of binding precedent was criticised as contrary to judicial discipline, with the court noting that such conduct may attract civil contempt, although the contempt proceedings were closed on the facts stated. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247201