2008 (8) TMI 34 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the adjudicating Commissioner pursuant to the order in Review passed by CBEC adjudication order has been passed relying on the decisions of tribunal in similar cases decisions of tribunal in those cases have attained finality as dept. not filed appeal in those relied on decisions hence review order of CBEC directing the revenue to file appeal is not correct adjudication order is correct, and, as per judicial discipline

Summary

Issues: Appeal against impugned order, Duty demand of over Rs. 2.60 crores, Reliance on earlier Tribunal orders, Directions from Central Board of Excise & Customs, Review order, Contrary decisions by Tribunal, Judicial discipline, Appeal by Department, Following Tribunal's earlier orders, Board's criticism of Tribunal's understanding, Safeguarding revenue interest, High revenue stakes, Setting aside impugned order, Rejecting department's appeal.

Analysis:
1. The adjudicating Commissioner dropped the proceedings involving duty demand of over Rs. 2.60 crores based on earlier Tribunal orders not appealed against by the Department. The Commissioner cited the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Supreme Court to follow higher appellate authorities' orders unreservedly. The Department filed an appeal against this order, despite the Commissioner's reliance on the Tribunal's decisions and the Supreme Court's guidance.
2. The Tribunal, in a similar case, emphasized the importance of following earlier Tribunal orders accepted by the Department. The Tribunal criticized the Board for directing an appeal against the Commissioner's decision, highlighting the Board's failure to safeguard revenue interest by not appealing against contrary Tribunal orders. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by the assesses, noting the Department's inaction against earlier Tribunal decisions.
3. Both sides acknowledged the similarity of the present case to earlier Tribunal decisions. The adjudicating Commissioner was deemed correct in following the Tribunal's earlier orders, as not appealed against by the Department, and in line with the Supreme Court's decision on judicial discipline. The Board's review order was criticized for being contrary to Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's directions, sending the wrong signal to officials. The Appeals filed based on the Board's directions were dismissed for being unsustainable.
4. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of upholding judicial discipline, following precedent, and safeguarding revenue interest by appealing against contrary decisions. The Board's actions were deemed improper and ill-conceived, as they went against established legal principles and undermined the authority of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The dismissal of the Appeals based on the Board's directions reaffirmed the necessity of adhering to legal precedents and higher appellate authorities' decisions.