#Binding Precedent

The Rajasthan High Court has held that any judicial order founded on a precedent subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court is legally void from inception. This ruling reinforces the hierarchy of precedent and mandates proactive correction of judgments tainted by invalid legal foundations, affecting all litigants relying on erroneous judicial reasoning.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that mediclaim payments cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. The court also reduced the interest rate from 15% to 12% per annum, citing lack of evidence and prevailing lower interest trends, setting a binding precedent for future compensation claims.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, affirmed the classification of Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and related parts under CTH 8708 94 00, dismissing appeals challenging differential duty demands. The ruling reinforces binding precedent on tariff classification under the General Interpretative Rules, impacting automotive manufacturers and importers.

The Kerala High Court ruled that insurers seeking to avoid interest liability under the Employee's Compensation Act must affirmatively prove the employer failed to comply with statutory obligations; silence in the written statement or mere assertion is insufficient. This shifts the burden of proof squarely onto insurers, reinforcing accountability and protecting dependants' right to timely compensation.

CESTAT Allahabad has ruled that once a tariff classification is finally settled by the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court, revenue authorities cannot reopen or challenge it in subsequent assessments. This reinforces the principle of finality in tax adjudication, providing certainty to importers and curbing repetitive litigation by tax authorities.

CESTAT Chennai rules that bulk mono potassium phosphate qualifies as a fertiliser under CTH 31056000, rejecting Revenue’s attempt to reclassify it under Chapter 28 based on a 2001 circular now rendered obsolete by evolving agricultural standards. This sets a binding precedent for importers of specialty fertilisers, ensuring tariff accuracy and aligning classification with current industry use.

Bombay High Court holds that orders under Section 81(6) MCS Act are administrative, not quasi-judicial, and coordinate benches' precedents bind single judges despite procedural circulars.

CESTAT Chandigarh upholds admissibility of weighted average deductions for post-manufacturing expenses, affirming binding precedent and rejecting repeated demands.

Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that tribunals must apply 15 multiplier and 40% future prospects for 40-year-old claimants with 50% disability, per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

ITAT Delhi holds that final assessment under Section 144C must comply with Section 153 time limits; Madras High Court's Roca Bathroom ratio is binding absent stay or contrary precedent.