2010 (6) TMI 171 - HC - Central Excise

Judicial Discipline- Supreme Court in BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIPUR 2005 (7) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, held that revenue cannot be allowed to take different view when question raised identical to previous case. High Court in present case cannot take different view from the Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 -TMI - 606 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE), as approved by the Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 5 regarding manufacturer's claim.
2. Validity of Tribunal's reliance on Karnataka High Court judgment.
3. Dismissal of Special Leave Petition and its implications.

Interpretation of Rule 5 regarding manufacturer's claim:
The Tribunal relied on a Karnataka High Court judgment regarding the interpretation of Rule 5, which stated that there is no express prohibition in Rule 5 for a manufacturer's claim. In a case where there was no manufacture due to the closure of the company, Rule 5 was deemed not applicable for rejection. The Tribunal allowed the refund based on similar past cases and the closure of the factory. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that Rule 5 does not apply in the absence of manufacturing activity.

Validity of Tribunal's reliance on Karnataka High Court judgment:
The Karnataka High Court judgment was the subject of a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Apex Court. The dismissal was not due to concession on the correctness of the judgment but because the Revenue had not appealed against the various judgments relied upon by the Karnataka High Court. The Apex Court confirmed the Karnataka High Court's judgment on its own merits, stating that the Revenue cannot take a different view on similar facts. The Tribunal's belief that the dismissal was based on concession was deemed incorrect, as the Apex Court's decision was independent of any concession.

Dismissal of Special Leave Petition and its implications:
The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine with no order as to costs was based on the Apex Court's confirmation of the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Apex Court's decision highlighted the principle that the Revenue cannot adopt a different stance on similar factual scenarios. The dismissal emphasized the importance of consistency in legal interpretations and decisions, especially when dealing with comparable cases. The judgment serves as a precedent for maintaining uniformity and adherence to established legal principles in similar matters.