9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndeparkar, President, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Nankani, Sparsh, Ms. Zeba, Shailen Bhati, L. Badrinarayan and R.K. Hasija, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Nitin Anand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - These matters have been referred to the Larger Bench consequent to the order passed in the matter of M/s. Eastern Medikit Ltd. on 22nd February, 2008 which reads thus : "Heard at length Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue on the point of waiver of pre-deposit and stay. We are of the view that the question arising for consideration is not concluded by the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (49) E.L.T. 322 and Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat v. Saheli Leasing Industries Ltd., reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 705 (S.C.), submitted that, reference made in the present cases is not maintainable as the reference order does not satisfy the requirement of law as laid down by the Apex Court in relation to the circumstances under which a matter can be referred to a Larger Bench. 3. In Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court in this regard had ruled thus : "9. It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. This is particularly true when the earlier decision is rendered by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of or there is an error apparent on its face or that a particular earlier decision was not noticed, which has a direct bearing or has taken a contrary view. Such does not appear to be a case herein. Thus, it does not need to be referred to a Larger Bench as in our considered opinion; it is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gold Coin (supra)." 5. The Tribunal in its order in Excise Appeal No. 217 of 2007 in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, decided on 30-6-2010 [2010 (256) E.L.T. 737 (Tri. - LB)], has elaborately discussed this issue and has also considered the circumstances under which the matter can be referred to a Larger Bench. 6. The order under reference does not disclose compliance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
