9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order is available. It is mentioned in the grounds of appeal that under the said order the Collector (Appeals) directed the Assistant Collector to consider the claim de novo in the light of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case reported in 1983 ECR 799 and 1983 ECR 1349. After such re-adjudication the Assistant Collector again rejected the refund claim under his order dated 26-7-84. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 21-12-84. This appeal is against the said order. 2. The appellants have intimated under their letter dated 2-5-88 that they will not be attending the hearing. They have enclosed a written submission in which they had stated as follows: For the time being, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector the Tribunal had in another case of these appellants themselves held against them on the question of the classification and liability for duty. Therefore, following the said decision the Assistant Collector had again rejected the refund claim. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) since he held that in view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of the appellants themselves their refund claim was not maintainable. 4. It appears from the records that the appellants had preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Tribunal under its order No.C-95/84 dated 20-2-84 and the Supreme Court has admitted the appeal and had ordered it to be listed for hearing. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h reference to the fact that the entire matter is now before this Tribunal. The question, therefore, to be considered would be whether this Tribunal is bound to follow the finding recorded by the Appellate Collector in the earlier stages. 7. This question, in precisely the same terms, though in connection with civil proceedings, was the subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Jasraj Indersingh v. Hemraj Multanchand (AIR 1977 SC 1011). In para 13 the Supreme Court stated: The surviving question before us is whether it was in order for the trial Court to have investigated the accounts in the two shops together as if they were transactions between the same two persons or whether the remand order of the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er principle of finality statutorily conferred or on account of res judicata attracted by a decision in an allied litigation the matter is concluded, we too are bound in the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the whole list for the first time comes to this Court and the High Court s finding at an intermediate stage does not prevent examination of the position of law by this Court. Intermediate stages of the litigation and orders passed at those stages have a provisional finality. After discussing various aspects of the matter, Chandrachud J., speaking for the Court in Lonankutty observed: The circumstance that the remanding judgment of the High Court was not appealed against, assuming that an appeal lay therefrom, cannot preclude the appellant from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
