TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the petitioner s case reported in JUMBO BAG LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2005 (3) TMI 188 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] , had held that the supplies made are not covered by Notification No.2/95 at all and the Commissioner was in error in invoking Notification No.2/95, for the purpose of demanding excise duty. The Revenue s appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court was dismissed, in view of the earlier decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS GINNI INTERNATIONAL LTD. [ 2007 (8) TMI 649 - SC ORDER] . The notable wordings of the Hon ble Supreme Court is that the matter before them are covered against the Revenue , in view of Ginni International Limited and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 and W.M.P.Nos.3248 & 3249 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH For Petitioner : Mr. N. Viswanathan (in both WPs) For Respondents : Mr. A.P. Srinivas, SSC (in both WPs) COMMON ORDER The Writ Petitions were called through Video Conferencing on 21.09.2020. By consent of both the parties, both these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. By placing reliance on Customs Notification No.125/84-C.E., the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of duty against the sales effected by them against the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) against foreign exchange. The Revenue rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the duty demanded. The challenge made to the rejectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 (211) ELT 353(SC). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the CESTAT had passed final orders dated 29.08.2016, holding that the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is against the Revenue, the earlier decision of the Tribunal merges with that of the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and therefore, the Revenue is not justifiable in interpreting the Hon ble Supreme Court s order. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit and stated that in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. (supra), there was no issue regarding the applicability of duty liability to sales, but the dispute with regard to the quantum of duty appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CESTAT, Revenue had raised grounds touching upon the decisions of Ginni International Limited (supra) and Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. (supra). In the present case, a similar attempt is made by the department to distinguish the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the petitioner s own case. 8. It is rather unfortunate that these Quasi Judicial Authorities have disregarded the underlying principle of judicial decisions and its binding effect. When the Hon ble Supreme Court had rejected the appeal of the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal, which was in favour of the importer, merges with the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court, under the principle of Doctrine of Merger . The attempt on the part of the Revenue to interpret the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
