TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in conferring discretion on the Tribunal, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose with a view to safeguard the interests of the revenue, to waive such a requirement, Parliament thought it fit to substitute Section 35F and prescribe a sum, equivalent to 7 percent of the disputed duty, to be deposited for an appeal to be entertained. Appeal dismissed. - Special Appeal No. 893 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2019 - Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. And Alok Kumar Verma, J. For the Appellants : Mr. P.R. Mullick For the Respondents : Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Mr. H.M. Bhatia ORDER RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (ORAL) Heard Mr. P.R. Mullick ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Section 35F(ii) of the Central Excise Act prohibits the Tribunal from entertaining an appeal unless the appellant has deposited 7 percent of the disputed duty. On the ground that they were unable to deposit 7 percent of the disputed duty, the appellants-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellants-writ petitioners were obligated to deposit the statutory demand of 7 percent, before the appellate authority, before the matter could be heard; and in order to escape from this statutory liability, of deposit of 7 percent of the demanded amount, they had filed the Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Parliament thought it fit to substitute Section 35F and prescribe a sum, equivalent to 7 percent of the disputed duty, to be deposited for an appeal to be entertained. By use of the words shall not entertain any appeal in Section 35F, Parliament has made it clear that the obligation to deposit 7 percent of the disputed duty is imperative. No discretion has been conferred on the Tribunal, or on any other authority under the Central Excise Act, to waive such a requirement. 7. While the High Court undoubtedly has, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wide powers, exercise of such powers is hedged by the requirement that it shall accord with law. In the present case, the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osses, and have deficient working capital. 11. The decision of a High Court will have the force of a binding precedent only in the State or territories over which the Court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court, it may, at best, have persuasive effect. The doctrine of stare decisis cannot be so stretched as to give the judgments of one High Court the status of a binding precedent so far as the other High Courts are concerned. [Geoffrey Manners Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT : Vol. 89 1996 Taxman. 287 (Bom. HC DB; CIT Vs. Thana Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. : (1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom); and Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. Vs. CIT : (1994) 209 ITR 277 (Bom)]. This doctrine is applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
