Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (12) TMI 1295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from 10th May 2008, did not find favour in the light of several decisions. In the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in their own matter on the very same impugned goods in HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , which was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED [ 2019 (3) TMI 1933 - SC ORDER] holding that nothing survives for consideration in these Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal. The Special Leave Petitions and the Civil Appeal are dismissed. The impugned orders do not survive and accordingly are set as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 44, besides imposition of penalties of like amount under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Furthermore, recovery of Rs. 86,17,224/- for October 2009 to December 2010, Rs. 50,00,545/- for the period from January 2011 to 30th June 2011 and Rs. 56,13,021/- for the period from 1st July 2011 to 31 st December 2011 in connection with clearance at the Taloja unit, and, in relation to the Dahali plant for the period from May 2006 to July 2010, recovery of Rs. 34,86,226/- ordered are challenged by impugning order-in-original no. Belapur/92-93/Tal/R-III/COMMR/KA/12-13 dated 25th March 2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur for the demand pertaining to 2011 and order-in-appeal no. BC/04/BEL/12-13 dated 19th April 2012 of Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Section 2(f) have to be satisfied conjunctively in order to entail imposition of excise duty under Section 3 of the Act, then, we cannot agree with the Tribunal. The Larger Bench decision does not take into account the fact that the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court and repeatedly rendered is binding on it. That is law declared under Articles 141 of the Constitution of India. That it is rendered in the case of identical issues, controversy and the Assessee makes these Judgments of the Supreme Court all the more binding. Their binding effect is not lost merely because the Tribunal has another occasion to consider the issue or another shade of the same controversy. So long as there are Supreme Court Judgments in the field, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty. It is in these circumstances that the attempt of the Tribunal and which is supported before us by Mr. Sethna cannot be upheld. Each of these observations and from para 6.5 onwards run counter to the Judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 23. In para 6.9, the Tribunal takes assistance of a Supreme Court Judgment and concludes that the ratio of any decision can be applied only if the facts are identical. True it is that the Hon ble Supreme Court holds this way, however, what are those facts and emerging from the record of this case which would enable it to take a different view have not been spelt out by the Tribunal. Even these observations and conclusions would go to show that the Tribunal does not dispute that it is considerin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... having already been issued, the Board finds it unable to agree to any contrary suggestion. It is only thereafter that we are called upon to decide the matter. It is only to enable Mr. Sethna to take such instructions that the Judgment was not pronounced immediately. However, finding that the matter stands completely covered by the Judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and which have been totally disregarded by the Tribunal that we are unable to sustain and uphold its conclusions. The impugned order can be safely termed as perverse and vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has reached a conclusion, which, no reasonable person in the position and as an adjudicating body could have reached. Its order pas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates