TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities found against the appellants. The claims of the appellants on the basis of the classification claimed by them for refund of the excess customs duty recovered were also dismissed by the lower authorities. 2. We have heard Shri S.R. Tamhane, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri C.V. Durghayya, D.R., for the respondent. 3. Shri Tamhane, pointed out that the issue in these appeals stood concluded in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Hico Products Ltd. (the present appellants themselves) reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 645. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Roussel Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ratio of these decisions cannot be applied. The assessment already made under Chapter 29 is treated as in order. The claims are not tenable and no refund is due. The Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 2-3-1987 has also chosen to ignore the CEGAT decisions and has confirmed the Assistant Collector s order. 6. In the above context, we must state that unless the orders of the CEGAT are stayed, or reversed, by a superior forum, the decisions cannot be ignored or brushed aside by quasi-judicial authorities in the department. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, has noted that the department had gone to the Supreme Court for stay of the Tribunal s order in the case of M/s. Roussel Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. (supra). He does not, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not mean it acts as a kind of stay of operation of the order of the Tribunal. So long as that order of the Tribunal is not set aside, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is bound to give effect to it, and if he fails to do it and by-passes it on the ground that the department has filed an appeal, it will be really a contempt of the Tribunal s order. In the circumstances, therefore, we should think that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner will, as he is bound to, follow the Tribunal s view. It is, of course, open to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to take his own view on the facts, but, so far as the law propounded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is binding and it should be applied by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g within its jurisdiction :- Whenever a decision of this court is found to be unacceptable to the authorities below, the simplest course to follow is to carry the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court by following the necessary statutory procedure and seek suspension of the order appealed against. If the Supreme Court suspends the operation of the judgment or order appealed against, it is clear that the authorities in the State are under no legal obligation to follow the judgment so suspended till the matter is decided by the Supreme Court. What is really happening is that without following the above course, the authorities are lightheartedly declining to follow the judgments of this court on the ground that either an appeal was filed or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
