1. This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of the adjudged dues including an amount of Rs. 1,45,389/- which represents the Cenvat credit denied to the appellant in respect of "Insurance Auxiliary Service" for the period from January, 2006 to September, 2010. On a perusal of the records, I find that a major part of the Cenvat credit taken by the assessee in respect of "Employees' Health Insurance" was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment in the case of CCE & ST v. Micro Labs Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 254. In respect of the same policy, however, Cenvat credit was denied for the period prior to 1-4-2008 on the ground that, for this period, the benefit could not be claimed by the assessee in terms of the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it stood during the said period. Obviously, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit to the assessee from 1-4-2008 in view of the amendment brought to the said definition under Notification No. 10/2008-C.E., dated 31-3-2008. At present, the learned counsel for the appellant claims support from CCE v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 244 wherein 'Insurance Auxiliary Services' were held to have a nexus with the business activities of the assessee and, accordingly, held to be covered by the "input service" and, consequently, the benefit of Cenvat credit was granted. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) has not cited any binding jurisdictional precedent to the contra.

2. As regards a small part of the demand (Rs. 51,784/-) in respect of "Residential Fire Policy", Cenvat credit to this extent has been denied to the assessee on the ground that there is no nexus between their 'business activity' and the 'residential fire policy'. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 22 STT 282 (Bang. - CESTAT) and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court on appeals filed against the Tribunal's decision in the ITC Ltd. case. In the cited case, Cenvat credit was allowed on "Maintenance or Repair Service" related to the staff colony set up by the company away from their factory. Per contra, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) claims support from two High Court decisions viz. CCE v. Manikgarh Cement [2010] 29 STT 230 (Bom.) and CCE & C v. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. [2012] 34 STT 587. In the former case, no nexus was found between the business of the assessee and maintenance/repairs and civil constructions done in their residential colony. In the latter case, no nexus was found between the business of the assessee (manufacture of final products) and security services employed in their residential colony. In both the cases, consequently, Cenvat credit came to be denied on activities/services undertaken/rendered at residential colonies set up away from the factory of the manufacturers.

3. Conflicting decisions of the High Court have been cited before me. Judicial discipline demands that the view taken by the jurisdictional High Court be followed. At this stage, the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) points out that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court did not render any specific ruling in the case of 1TC Ltd. (supra). It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court only observed that no substantial question of law arose in that case. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) means to say that the Hon'ble High Court's judgment offers no precedent to be followed. This argument needs to be rejected at the outset. The meaning of the conclusion recorded by the Hon'ble High Court is that, in the judgment of the Tribunal which was appealed against, the law was correctly applied on a question of law correctly settled. In the result, it has to be held that the decision of the Tribunal in ITC Ltd. case (supra) stands affirmed with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The present disp