TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 [ 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - I am inclined to follow the decision of jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] , which has not been stayed and has a binding force as on date. The Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] , while taking note of the fact that the decision in Indsur Global has been stayed, observed that the Revenue cannot take a stand contrary to that taken in other High Courts and accordingly declared the rule to be invalid. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause Notice dated 21.09.2012, was adjudicated. The duty demand in the Show-Cause Notice was confirmed along with interest. In addition, a penalty of ₹ 355,010/- was also ordered to be paid. On Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. I find that the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on which the demand for duty has been raised by the Department has been struck down by the various High Courts as ultra vires in the following decisions, he referred to some of the decisions, (i) 2014 (310) Excise Law Time 833 (Gujarat) (Indsur global Ltd. V. Union of India), (ii) 2015 (326) Excise Law Time 256 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. I have carefully perused the decisions of the various High Courts. I note that the Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, in the case of Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd (Supra), while taking note of the fact that the decision in Indsur Global has been stayed, observed that the Revenue cannot take a stand contrary to that taken in other High Courts and accordingly declared the rule to be invalid. At this juncture, I also take note of the observations made by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Ors reported in [2016] 67 taxmann.com 42 (Bom), that once there is a binding decision of the High Court, the same continues to be binding on all the authorities within the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and not by disregarding binding decisions of this Court. In fact our court in Panjumal Hassomal Advani Vs. Harpal Singh Abnashi Singh Sawhney Ors. AIR 1975(Bom) 120 has observed that a coordinate bench cannot refuse to follow an earlier decision on the ground that it is incorrect and / or rendered on misinterpretation. This for the reason that the decision of a coordinate bench would continue to be binding till it is corrected by a higher Court. This principle laid down in respect of a coordinate Court would apply with greater force on subordinate Courts and Tribunals. We are also conscious of the fact that we are not final and our orders are subject to appeals to the Supreme Court. However, for the purposes of certainty, fairness and u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year. This is a clear case of judicial indiscipline and creating confusion in respect of issues which stand settled by the decision of this Court. 25. It is in the above view, that we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 23rd September, 2015 in its entirety and restore the issue to the Tribunal to decide it afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. However the Tribunal would scrupulously follow the decisions rendered by this Court wherein a view has been taken on identical issues arising before it. It is not open to the Tribunal to disregard the binding decisions of this Court, the grounds indicated in the impugned order which are not at all sustainable. Unless the Tribunal follows this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
