TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. We are bound to follow the precedent decision in these appeals - Accordingly, we find that both the issue in this case has been decided by this Tribunal earlier in appellants own case on similar facts and identical issues - Accordingly Central Excise duty need not be discharged by 100% EOU & entitled for the benefit of Notification 2/95. - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/893, 2495, 2501/2003-NBC and Cross Objection Nos. E/CO/128, 52/2004-NZB - A/82-86/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 10-2-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal and P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Today 11 miscellaneous applications and three appeals were listed for final disposal. 2. Ld. advocate for the appellants appeared before us and submitted that in the appellants own case (for the subsequent period on the same issue), the appeals of the appellants were allowed by this Tribunal vide Order no. A-409/2008/WZB/C-IV-EB dated 22-4-2008. Hence, if this Tribunal is relying on the earlier decision of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issue namely whether the supply of DTA against the payment in foreign exchange under 9.1 of the Export Import Policy could be accounted as DTA as per para 9.9 and accordingly are eligible for benefit of Notification 2/95-C.E. was held by this Tribunal vide order No. M1587/07-CII dated 3-9-2007 because the similar issue has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills, 2007 (211) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) as proposed by the appellants. He further submitted that this issue has been decided by this Tribunal on relying on decision of Virlon Textile Mills (supra) which was passed in concession and same cannot be considered to be binding precedent. To support this contention, ld. DR relied on decision of Supreme Court in Civil No. 1020/05 in the case of Noida District Primary School Council v. Shristidhar Biswas and Ors. wherein it was held that we do not want to comment further but we must make it clear that any order passed on concession does not lay down the law and it cannot be followed as a precedent . He further relied on Munilal Mehra v. CC, 2008 (226) E.L.T. 102 (T.-Mum.). 4.2 On the second issue, DR submitted that the Revenue has challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld 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. Otherwise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients. Subordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it, ultimately, falls into disrepute. These are the observations made by the Apex Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 S.C. 261. 18. The Apex Court also had an occasion to notice similar impropriety in the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 S.C. 1767; wherein it was observed as under : It is hardly necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file of the Tribunal with direction to hear and decide the same afresh by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice. If the Tribunal decides to take view contrary to the view holding the field, then in that event it is expected of the Tribunal to pass appropriate order leading to reference to a larger bench to resolve differences, if any. 8. Further we have examined the issue in the case of Pramod Shah v. CC in Criminal Application 4230/06 wherein the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has observed as under :- To say the least, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not following the binding precedent. The precedent does not cease to be binding merely because in the opinion of the learned Judge, the same is challenged in the Supreme Court and its operation stayed by the Supreme Court. In the decision reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court Page 1439 in the case of M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, the Hon ble Supreme Court has very succinctly pointed out the difference between a judgement being quashed and set aside and its operation stayed by the higher court. The judgement being stayed does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
