Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 731 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of central excise duty - waste and scrap products cleared by the appellant, without payment of duty - period from February 2013 to June 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue was involved in M/S VARUN BEVERAGES LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. AND ST, JAIPUR-I [2018 (4) TMI 823 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the various goods on which the Revenue seeks to collect Excise duty are all, admittedly, products incidentally arising during the manufacture of finished goods on which in any case, the appellant is discharging duty. These scrap material are not emerging due to a process of manufacture. Hence, they do not qualify to be taxed for excise levy. It will also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT]. The order passed by the Assistant Collector not only ignored the order of the Collector (Appeals) remanding the matter, but also distinguished the decision of the Tribunal by observing that the decision of the Tribunal had not been agreed to by the Department as an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court. The assessee filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court to challenge the said order of the Assistant Collector. The High Court not only quashed the order passed by the Assistant Collector but also directed the Department to allocate the matter to a competent officer for passing a proper order - The Supreme Court also observed that the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors who functions under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of higher appellate authorities are unreservedly followed by the subordinate authorities. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court have been referred to by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RALSONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2007 (1) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT] and it has been observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, should have been allowed solely on the ground that on the same issue the Tribunal had earlier decided that no excise duty could be levied but the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to accept this decision as a binding precedent and dismissed the appeal - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|