TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Tribunal in present case not correct. Held that-Impugned order set aside. Matter remanded for fresh decision. Reference to Larger Bench to be made if contra view taken in de novo order. - 1614 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2010 - V.C. Daga and K.K. Tated, JJ. S/Shri V. Sridharan with Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: V.C.D Daga, J.]- Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Pardeshi waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 20th November, 2009 [2010 (252) BET. 193 Tri. Mumbai)] allowing appeal filed by the Revenue. The facts giving rise to the present peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etimes more than that actually incurred and sometimes less than actually incurred. Excess recovery of RDC is not includible in the assessable value of the vehicles. Accordingly, the above show cause notices proposing recovery of differential duty under Section 1 of the Act was required were replied by the petitioner. 6. The Respondent No. 2 passed order-in-original dated 17th February, 2003, inter alia; holding that RDC is not includible in the assessable value of the final product in as much as the sale takes place at the factory gate, since the place of removal is the factory gate and not the premises of the buyer, as such relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts JCB Limited v. CCE, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31, Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther went on to hold that the excess RDC would be includible in the assessable value of the vehicles. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed appeal be fore the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 20th November, 2009 [2010 (252) E.L.T. 191 (Tri.) chose not to follow the earlier order dated 26th May, 2008 passed in the case of petitioner itself dealing with the very same issue for earlier period and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining breath of propriety on the part of the Tribunal by not referring the issue to a larger bench, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val and hence such….. (emphasis supplied) 13. Mr. Sridharan brought to our notice that when another appeal filed by the present petitioner came up for consideration before the Tribunal, the aforesaid judgment was pressed into service to contend that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner itself delivered on 26th May, 2008. However, the Tribunal did not follow that judgment holding as under: (a) We hold that we need not follow the decision 1 the Tribunal in Order No. A/463-470/08/C-I/EB. dated 26-5-08 in view of the fact that while the controversy was noted, the decision was that the elements of freight and transit insurance are not includible in the assessable value since place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. In our system of judicial review which is a part of our Constitutional scheme, we hold it to be the duty of the judges of the courts and members of the tribunals to make the law more predictable. The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law must be made more effective as a guide to behavior. It must be determined with reasons which carry convictions within the Courts, profession and public. Other wise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General of West Bengal , AIR 1960 SC 936 (at p.941); wherein it is ob served: "We have noticed with some regret that when the earlier decision of two Judges of the same High Court in Deorajins case, 58 Cal. 'WN 64 AIR 1954 Cal 119 was cited before the leaned Judges who heard the present appeal they took on themselves to say that the previous decision was wrong, in stead of following the usual procedure in case of difference of opinion with an earlier decision, of referring no less than legal propriety form the basis of judicial procedure. If one thing is more necessary in law than any other thing, it is the quality of certainty. that quality would totally disappear if Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
