9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal's earlier orders in the case of M/s. Delta Plastics v. C.C.E. - KOL-I-2003 (56) RLT 85 and in the case of M/s. Brijmohan Sheokishan v. C.C.E.-KOL-I (Order No. S-18-21 and A-6-9 dated 16-1-2003) [2003 (160) E.L.T. 188 (T)] and M/s. Indian Polypipes and Others v. C.C.E.-KOL-I (Order No. M-207-214 and A-218-237 dated 25-3-2003) [2003 (157) E.L.T. 652 (T)]. He has recorded that all the earlier cases decided by the Tribunal were identical to the present one with the same facts and circumstances and allegations and all booked around the same time by the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion. He has further recorded that the matter was no longer res integra as the cited orders of the Tribunal were not appealed against by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. 4. In a group of similar cases which were heard and decided by us on 30-4-2008 vide M/s. Associated Polymer Industries v. C.C.E., Kolkata-II - 2008 (227) ELT 449 (Tri.-Kolkata), we had recorded as follows: "6. It goes without saying that if the department has accepted the Tribunal's order on the same issue in the earlier cases and has not filed any appeal, the ratio of the earlier orders is required to be followed in the present cases. It is not as if the departmental authorities were not aware of the contrary decision by the Tribunal. We find that in the Review Order dated 3-1- 2005 passed by the ld. Member (L & J) on behalf of the Board, the ld. Member has referred to the Tribunal's earlier orders in Paragraph 4 of his Review Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we have no option but to hold that the adjudicating Commissioner was wrong in not applying the ratio of those decisions and confirming the duty and penalty under the impugned orders. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the appellant assesses in Appeal Nos. 508,509/04, 550 and 551/06. For the same reason, in respect of departmental Appeal No. 75/05, we find nothing wrong in the order of the adjudicating Commissioner in applying the ratio of the earlier orders of the Tribunal and dropping the demands. Since, the Department has not appealed against the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the impugned order calls for no interference by us. Consequently, we reject the department's Appeal No. 75/05." 5. Both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner in this case had no choice but was duty bound to follow the ratio of those decisions as a matter of judicial discipline. The adjudicating Commissioner has, therefore, correctly followed the Tribunal's earlier orders which have not been appealed against by the Department and he has also acted correctly in terms of the cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation (supra). On the other hand, the Review order passed by the Board is ill-conceived and improper being contrary to the earlier orders of the Tribunal as well as being contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in its order in the case of M/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation (supra). 6. It also sends a wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
