2013 (11) TMI 432 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Precedent - Principles of judicial discipline Held that - Orders passed by Collector (Appeals) and Tribunal binding on all adjudicating and appellate authorities within their respective jurisdiction - Relying upon Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - The mere filing of an Appeal before the next higher forum will not tantamount to a Stay on those decisions - The Assistant Commissioner has construed that, mere filing of an Appeal, empowers her to entertain a different view - Such an approach will cause utter chaos and detriment to the administration of justice - Mere fact of appeal having been filed against the order no ground for not following it - The correct course for her was to transfer the case to Call-Book and await the decision of the Hon ble CESTAT on the Appeal filed by the Department order set aside decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with higher appellate authorities' decisions by Assistant Commissioner.
2. Judicial discipline and binding nature of appellate authorities' orders.
3. Misinterpretation of the effect of filing an appeal on previous decisions.
4. Request for setting aside the impugned order based on judicial discipline principles.
5. Direction to transfer the case to Call Book pending CESTAT decision.

Analysis:

The judgment deals with the issue of non-compliance with decisions of higher appellate authorities by the Assistant Commissioner. The Appellant raised a grievance that despite orders passed by the Joint Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) on the same issue, the Assistant Commissioner disregarded these decisions. The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline, citing the precedent that orders of higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by subordinate authorities. The failure to adhere to this principle can lead to undue harassment to assessees and chaos in tax law administration.

Regarding the misinterpretation of the effect of filing an appeal on previous decisions, it was highlighted that the mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the operation of existing decisions. The Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining a different view based on the appeal filed, causing potential chaos and detriment to the administration of justice. The correct course of action would have been to transfer the case to Call Book and await the decision of the higher forum.

The Appellant's submission stressed the importance of judicial discipline, arguing that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in their earlier case should be binding on the lower authority unless stayed by a higher court. The mere filing of an appeal should not be a ground for confirming demands against the Appellant. The judgment ultimately set aside the impugned order and directed the case to be transferred to Call Book pending the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, emphasizing the need to follow established legal principles and respect higher appellate authorities' decisions.

Additionally, a reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court of Philippines, underscoring the importance of lower courts respecting and being bound by decisions of appellate courts. The judgment highlighted the ministerial duty of trial courts to execute final judgments and the necessity for lower courts to defer to orders of higher courts, maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial system. The impugned order was ultimately set aside with a direction to transfer it to Call Book awaiting the CESTAT decision, ensuring adherence to legal principles and higher authority decisions.