9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1116 - SC - Central ExciseJob worker liability of pay excise duty receipt of material under 57F(2) / 57F(4) challans It is the case of the Revenue that the job worker would be liable to pay central excise duty, specially, when he has received the raw material against the challan under rule 57F(2) of the Rules and not the final manufacturer of the end product.
Issues:
- Failure of High Court to consider previous Supreme Court judgment in a connected matter. Analysis: The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, addressed the issue of the High Court failing to consider a previous decision by the Supreme Court in a connected matter. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the present appeal stemmed from orders passed by the Tribunal in a specific case. The Tribunal's order disposed of appeals by multiple parties, including the respondent. It was noted that other parties had filed appeals before the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's decision, leading to a judgment in 2006 dismissing all appeals. Subsequently, the respondent approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not take into account the Supreme Court's earlier decision in the connected matter. The Court opined that the High Court might not have been made aware of the previous judgment, leading to the erroneous order. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, set aside the High Court's judgment and directed a fresh consideration of the Revision Petition, instructing the High Court to take note of the Supreme Court's decision in the related case. The Court emphasized the importance of the High Court reconsidering the issue in light of the previous judgment promptly. Consequently, the impugned judgment was overturned, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for expedited reconsideration. The appellant was directed to appear before the High Court on a specified date, with instructions for the High Court to issue a fresh notice to the absent respondent. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with the Court's order, emphasizing the need for the High Court to revisit the issue with due regard to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling.
|
