TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms.Cynduja Crishnan for M/s.Mohammed Shaffiq For the Respondents : Ms.R.Hemalatha JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1.This appeal has been filed under 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whereby, challenge is laid to the final order dated 18.06.2010, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in short the Tribunal ). 2.The captioned appeal was admitted by virtue of order dated 21.12.2001, whereby, this Court directed that the following questions of law, be framed for consideration, by the Court: 1.Whether the Learned Single Member is at liberty to disagree with the views expressed by the Larger Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em qua outdoor caterer services extended to it, in respect of food supplied to its employees by treating the same as input service used in and/or in connection with it's manufacturing activity. 4.To be noted, the appellant herein is a manufacturer of Flywheel Magneto Assembly, regulatory assembly. 5.The Tribunal dealt with the said issue, by way of common order, which was passed in 13 appeals preferred before it. 5.1.To be noted, one such appeal, out of the 13 appeals, filed before the Tribunal, pertained to the appellant herein. 5.2.During the pendency of the appellant's appeal, another Assessee, namely, I.P.Rings Limited approached this Court, by way of an appeal, against the order impugned in the instant appeal. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 and 4. 6.1.According to the learned counsel, questions no.1, 2 and 5, really raise the issue with regard to judicial propriety. 7.Ms.Hemalatha, who appears for the Revenue, similarly, submits that questions no.3 4, would relate to the merits of the matter, and are covered against the Department, by a series of judgment, including the judgment delivered in I.P.Rings Limited case. 7.1.In so far as the remaining questions are concerned, i.e., questions no.1, 2 5, Ms.Hemalatha, cannot, but, submit that judicial discipline required the Tribunal to adhere to the decision rendered by a Larger Bench on the same issue. 8.Accordingly, having regard to the judgment in I.P.Rings Limited case, whereby, the common order dated 18.06.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
