Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 776 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTReversal of cenvat credit - at proportionate rate or at 10%/5% as per Rule 6(3) - Non maintenance of separate inventory - Contravention the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- Neither there is any allegation in the memorandum of appeal nor it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, are perverse. The Tribunal being the last fact finding authority, its findings of fact cannot be interfered unless it is alleged and established that the findings are perverse. Thus, no substantial questions of law as framed by the appellant arise for consideration - So far as the findings of the Tribunal with regard to "judicial discipline" is concerned, we find that it is undisputed that the earlier Final Order [2012 (2) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] as corrected by order, whereby the Tribunal remanded the matter to the present appellant with specific directions, was accepted by the appellant/ Central Excise Department and thus became final. Therefore, it was not open for the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur to pass the order ignoring the remand direction and confirming the demand on the same grounds as taken in the first order in original which was set aside by the Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. - No merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
|