TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the approach which has been adopted by the Tribunal in the present case, was not consistent with the principles of judicial functioning. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 9 May 2011 and 12 August 2011 - Restore the application for waiver of predeposit to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits. - 37 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2011 - D.Y. Chandrachud and A.A. Sayed, JJ. Sujay N. Kantawala with Brijesh Pathak for the Appellant Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.Y. Chandrachud, J 1. This appeal is directed against two orders passed by the CESTAT. By the first of the orders dated 9 May 2011, the Tribunal on an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 433 (S.C.), followed the decision in Sayed Ali and had remanded the proceedings in that case, before the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Despite these decisions, which were brought to the 2 Application No.C/MA(Ors)/415 and416/2010 decided on 7 June 2011 notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal by its order dated 12 August 2011, dismissed the application for modification of the earlier order on the ground that a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Meenakshi Apparels Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 481 was relied upon by the Department. 2. In appeal before this Court, the submission which is urged is that the Tribunal has not followed the binding decisions of the Supreme Court and of its own Coor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2011, calling upon the Appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 30 lakhs, in addition to the amount of ₹ 20 lakhs already paid (towards the total duty of ₹ 89.36 lakhs), the Appellant moved an application for modification before the Tribunal. Such an application was maintainable in view of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Maina Khemka vs. Union of India.5 In that case the Division Bench, presided over by Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.M. Lodha (as His Lordship then was), considered the earlier judgment of this Court in Baron International Ltd. vs. Union of India,6 and held that though in Baron this Court has held that the Tribunal cannot exercise the review jurisdiction, a party can always seek a modification of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011, the Appellant justifiably drew the attention of the Tribunal to this aspect and sought a modification of the order. In addition, the Appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandana Impex (supra) and to another decision of a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal itself. The CESTAT as a judicial body, must realize the importance of the doctrine of precedent as in our legal system. Deference to judgments of the Supreme Court is a matter of constitutional principle. Equally, unless coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have due deference and regard for decisions rendered by the Tribunal, the elements of certainty and consistency in the judicial process which lie at the heart of judicial functioning would be seriously disrupted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
