9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 146/74-C.E. dated 12-10-74. The Central Excise authorities sanctioned the rebate of Rs. 15,24,314/- out of the total claim of Rs.26,35,142.65 on the ground that excess production has to be calculated on the average production. 2. Being aggrieved on the above mode of calculation of excess production and consequent disallowance of a part of the rebate claim, the appellants filed writ petitions before the Hon ble High Court of Madras. The said writ petitions were decided by the High Court on 28-9-79 [1983 (13) E.L.T. 484 (Mad.)] who allowed the same and as a result the appellants took the differential credit of Rs. 11,19,828/- in their accounts on 18-2-80. 3. However, the Revenue did not accept the Hon ble High Court s order and fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their having lost the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court was within six months from the relevant date and hence under Section 11B, the refund be given to them notwithstanding the fact that the earlier case before the Supreme Court was against them. They contended that in view of changed law by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the refund is payable to them. The AC accepted the above stand of the appellants and regularised the reversal of the credit by the appellants. 5. Being aggrieved with the above order of the AC, the Revenue filed an appeal there against before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appellate authority accepted the appeal of the Revenue by observing that the demand of duty was in consequence to the Hon ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anoria Industrial Ltd. and another, reported in 2003 (ITR) Vol. 259 (SC) 321. 8. Shri C. Mani, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submits that dispute has travelled up to Hon ble Supreme Court and the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed. Thereafter, the review petition filed by the said manufacturer has also been rejected by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the appellant s case having attained finality cannot be allowed to be re-opened in view of changed law. He submits that if such re-openings are allowed, there would not be any judicial discipline. He submits that it is well settled law that any order which has attained finality is binding between the parties inter-se to the case. He also refers to the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputes are still pending and have not been decided or the same may be applicable to the present appellants for the period other than the one which already stands decided by the Supreme Court in their own case. The appellant s success or failure in a particular case is depending upon the out come of proceedings in their own case and the finality of the proceedings cannot be made ineffective merely because in a subsequent case in the matter of some other assessees the Court has taken a different view. We also feel that the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board and Others v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. and Another relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
