9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see against adjudication orders dated 26.10.2012 and 21.02.2013. This appeal is preferred against the order of the lower appellate Authority in so far as it pertains to rejection of the assessee's appeal against adjudication order bearing reference No.07/HMA/ADC/D-I/2013 dated 21.02.2013. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee vide show cause notice dated 17.04.2012 covering the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, alleging removal of excisable goods without remittance of duty and transgression of other provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules thereunder. The show cause notice proposed levy and recovery of Duty alongwith interest and penalties, as specified. 4. The assessee is a manufacturer of Printed Cork Tipping Pap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi High Court but the High Court had dismissed Revenue's appeal only on the ground of limitation and not on merits, the Tribunal decision had not attained finality; thus treating this decision as unworthy of efficacy as a binding precedent. 8. Aggrieved by the primary order, assessee preferred an appeal which stands rejected by the impugned order. Para 6 of the impugned order clearly adverts to the contention urged on behalf of the assessee, that the controversy is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal reported in 2003 (154) ELT 711 (T). This paragraph also records the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal's decision had attained finality as Revenue's appeal filed there against was rejected by the Delhi H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of this Tribunal was rejected only on the ground of bar of limitation and not in affirmation of the conclusions recorded on merits, does not derogate from the principle that a judgment of this Tribunal is per se of binding precedential vitality qua adjudicating authorities lower in the hierarchy, such as a primary adjudicating authority or a Commissioner (Appeals). This is too well settled to justify elaborate analyses and exposition, of this protean principle. 12. Nevertheless, the primary and the lower appellate Authorities in this case, despite adverting to the judgment of this Tribunal and without concluding that the judgment had suffered either a temporal or plenary eclipse (on account of suspension or reversal of its ratio by any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
