2010 (8) TMI 259 - AT - Central Excise

Reference to Larger Bench - application filed for any relief during the pendency of the proceedings - interim order passed - order merged in the final order disposing the proceedings Held that - unless the order attains the finality, any observation in relation to any point of law in interim order cannot attain finality nor it can be said that such order settles the point of law - interim order cannot have the effect of binding precedent

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether an amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is clarificatory and retrospective.
2. Consideration of whether an order passed in a stay application constitutes a final order with binding precedent.

Issue 1 - Interpretation of Amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of whether the amendment introduced to Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 under Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008 is clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective. The Division Bench found it difficult to subscribe to the view taken by another Division Bench in a different case, leading to a reference to a Larger Bench for resolution.

Issue 2 - Status of Orders in Stay Applications:
The Tribunal delved into the question of whether an order passed in a stay application holds the status of a final order with binding precedent. It was clarified that any order passed during the pendency of proceedings, such as in a stay application, is considered an interim order. Such interim orders do not establish binding precedent until the proceedings are finally disposed of. The Tribunal emphasized that observations on points of law in interim orders do not attain finality or create binding precedent, as interim orders are subject to change until the final order is issued.

The Tribunal cited the case law of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India to support the principle that interim orders do not set binding precedents for subsequent cases, even if the facts are similar. The discretion to grant or refuse interim relief lies with the judicial or quasi-judicial authority, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The Tribunal highlighted that the grant or refusal of interim relief is based on the specific facts of each case and is not meant to establish a precedent for future cases.

In the specific case under consideration, the Tribunal noted that the order in question was an interim order passed in a stay application. Despite the belief of the parties and the Bench that it was a final disposal, the Tribunal clarified that such interim orders do not have the effect of binding precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal returned the reference to the Division Bench for further consideration in light of the legal principles discussed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the interpretation of a clarificatory amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules and clarified the status of orders passed in stay applications, emphasizing that interim orders do not establish binding precedents on points of law.