TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as Civil Appeal No. D15220 of 1999 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal against the said order was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19-11-1999 [2002 (139) E.L.T. A310 (S.C.)]. 4.In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri D.N. Patel has appeared for the respondent authorities. Looking to the fact that the earlier view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner has been now confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing an appeal filed against the said order, he had to reluctantly agree to the fact that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be justified. 5.Looking to the above referred undisputed fact, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error in taking a different view than the one which it had taken in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kochi and in the case of Shree Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner. Possibly the Tribunal was not aware of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners factory situated at Surat Central Excise Commissionerate. 10.2The Central Government issued a Notification being Notification No. 156/85, dated 13th July, 1985, under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Central Government has specified by the said notification that inputs and the final products namely the above yarns for which Proforma Credit Scheme under Rule 56A was made applicable. Though the manufacturers of the yarns in question were thus allowed benefit of Proforma Credit Scheme under which also credit of duties paid on the inputs was allowed while paying duty on the final products, this Scheme was not under Rule 57A (i.e. Modvat on inputs) or under Rule 57Q (i.e. Modvat on capital goods). 10.3The Central Government thereafter issued a Notification No. 1/93 dated 28th February, 1993, allowing thereunder slab-wise exemption to goods specified under the Notification. One of the conditions was about availment of Modvat credit for inputs under Rule 57A and/or capital goods under Rule 57A of the Rules. The yarns falling under Heading No. 54.03 were not covered under this Notification. 10.4The Central Government t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed appeal against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which 22 appeals including the appeal of the petitioners were filed. 10.9The hearing of the above 22 appeals was fixed before the CEGAT on 25th January, 2002. It appears that the representative of the petitioners did not remain present before the CEGAT because by that time earlier in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 127 (T) = 1993 (48) ECR 286, Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sri Kumaran Spinners (P) Ltd. - 1997 (73) ECR 894, Commissioner, Coimbatore v. Sellammal Spinners - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 685 and Sharma Textiles - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 421 the Tribunal had already taken the view in favour of the trade and these decisions including the one in case of Sharma Textiles (supra) were reported and therefore the petitioners did not attend the personal hearing before the CEGAT. 10.10The Tribunal passed order on 18th May, 2002, thereby allowing appeals of the department and setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the value of clearance from 25-4-1994 shall be taken into account under Notification No. 1/93, without referring to the earlier binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the impugned judgment following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was to be availed of from the first day of financial year and assessee can avail of the said benefit of the notification even in the middle of the financial year also. He submitted that in view of this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the entire controversy is settled and the present decision of the Tribunal is therefore contrary to and inconsistent with not only earlier order of the Tribunal but the earlier order which has already been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12.In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondent authorities. Looking to the fact that the earlier view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cables Conductors Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra) has been now confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing an appeal filed against the said order, he had to reluctantly agree to the fact that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be justified. 13.Looking to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edent. "25.105. If Art. 141 embodies, as a rule of law, the doctrine of precedent on which our judicial system is based, it is necessary to set out briefly the circumstances under which precedents would not be binding on courts. This question was elaborately considered in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. and it is submitted that its effect is accurately set out in Halsbury. The decisions of the Court of Appeal upon questions of law must be followed by the courts of first instance, and are, as a general rule, considered by the Court of Appeal to be binding on itself, until a contrary determination has been arrived at by the House of Lords. There are, however, three exceptions to this rule, namely, (1) the court is entitled and bound to decide which of two conflicting decisions of its own it will follow; (2) the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision of its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion, stand with a decision of the House of Lords; (3) the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if given per incuriam." 15.1The Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition pages 148 to 156 under heading "Circumstances destroying or weakening the bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
