TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpret the view that being a State and manufacturing goods for their own captive consumption, no duty is required to be paid by them, though the Commissioner in his impugned order has observed that the appellant was a declarant and was paying duty for some period in between. Nevertheless, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant. It is further seen that the appellant deposited the entire amount of duty even before the issuance of the show cause notice. It is well-settled law that in case of conflict between two High Courts, the view of the High Court having jurisdiction over the assessee has to be applied. Thus, we are of the view that imposition of penalty and confirmation of interest against the appellant is not warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issuance of the show cause notice, provisions of Sections 11AC and 11AB are not attracted. On the other hand, the ld. DR as relied upon Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Sai Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Indore [2006 (203) E.L.T. 15 (M.P.)]. 3. Before applying the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, we would like to recapitulate certain facts having a bearing on the issue of penalty. Admittedly, appellant is a local authority constituted under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, and as such it a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, there could be no motive on their part to evade duty with an intention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise, Bangalore [1996 (82) E.L.T. 512 (Tribunal)] and in the case of Narendra Products v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2004 (178) E.L.T. 618 (Tri. - Del.)]. Ratio of all the decisions is that judicial discipline requires the Tribunal to follow the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court when views of other High Court are conflicting. Inasmuch as, the appellant is within the jurisdiction of Hon ble Bombay High Court, we proposed to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. We also note that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries reported in [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)], the Hon ble High Court has observed that the disputed duty having been paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
