2014 (10) TMI 990 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. as amended by N/N. 61/2007 - difference of opinion - Held that - The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC New Delhi v. Sameer Gehlot 2010 (11) TMI 85 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has taken a view that the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. is available to the assessee and another co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of King Rotors & Air Charter Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (6) TMI 276 - CESTAT MUMBAI has taken a diagonically opposite view and denied the benefit of exemption notification to the assessee. As the contradictory orders passed by benches comprises of same number of Members i.e. Division Bench we are unable to come to conclusion as to which judgment should be followed as we find the issue involved is the same - we direct the Registry to refer this matter to Hon ble President for constitution of Larger Bench to come to a conclusion as to which view is correct view. Matter referred to Larger Bench.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Differential Customs duty, penalties, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., contradictory views of different Tribunal benches.

Analysis:
The judgment in question deals with multiple appeals filed against impugned orders confirming differential Customs duty and penalties on the appellants for allegedly improperly availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal notes the conflicting views of different benches on the applicability of the said notification. One bench held that the benefit is available to the assessee, while another bench took an opposite stance, denying the benefit of exemption notification. The Tribunal acknowledges the contradiction and the need for clarity on the correct interpretation of the law.

Upon reviewing the judgments in question, the Tribunal finds that the views expressed by the two benches are indeed contradictory. Both benches comprised the same number of Members, leading to a dilemma in determining which judgment should be followed. The Tribunal concludes that the issue at hand is the same in both cases, further emphasizing the need for a consistent and conclusive interpretation of the law to avoid such discrepancies in the future.

In light of the conflicting views and the inability to reconcile the differing opinions, the Tribunal decides to refer the matter to the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench. The purpose of this referral is to arrive at a definitive conclusion on which view represents the correct interpretation of the law. The Registry is instructed to forward the order and copies of the relevant judgments to the Hon'ble President for further consideration and resolution of the issue at hand.