https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755050 The HC quashed a CESTAT Member (Technical)'s order that created a split decision on CENVAT credit availability for insurance companies on invoices from automotive dealers. The court held that coordinate CESTAT benches had already decided this issue in favor of allowing such credits in multiple precedents, including Cholamandalam and ICICI Lombard cases. The HC ruled that referring the matter to a third member was unnecessary when coordinate benches had consistently held that denying CENVAT credit was unreasonable when tax was already paid by dealers to the government. The petition was allowed, emphasizing judicial discipline and the doctrine of precedents. en-us Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2024 23:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755050 The HC quashed a CESTAT Member (Technical)'s order that created a split decision on CENVAT credit availability for insurance companies on invoices from automotive dealers. The court held that coordinate CESTAT benches had already decided this issue in favor of allowing such credits in multiple precedents, including Cholamandalam and ICICI Lombard cases. The HC ruled that referring the matter to a third member was unnecessary when coordinate benches had consistently held that denying CENVAT credit was unreasonable when tax was already paid by dealers to the government. The petition was allowed, emphasizing judicial discipline and the doctrine of precedents. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755050