9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipline, the show-cause notice was dropped. In the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has in going into this aspect at all and taken the submissions of the revenue and passed the order impugned which is not correct in the eyes of law. It is well settled law in the case of Kamakshi (1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) judicial discipline is to be followed by lower courts. In this case the lower appellate authority has not followed the judicial disciple, hence, no other option to set aside the impugned order. Appeal allowed. - E/3790/05 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2011 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR for the respondent Per: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim was rejected as time barred vide order dated 26.2.1999. Same was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection of refund claim and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration and in pursuance to that, the refund claim was sanctioned.Revenue filed an appeal against the sanction of said refund claim before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, a preventive show-cause notice dated 5.10.1999 was also issued to the appellants for recovery of erroneous refund as per order dated 20.9.1999.The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 5.3.2002 set aside the order dated 20.9.1999 and allowed the department's appeal holding that the appellants are not authorised by the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees and chaos in administration of tax laws. That the impression or anxiety of the Assistant Collector that, if he accepted the assessee's contention, the department would lose revenue and would also have no remedy to have the matter rectified is also incorrect as Section 35E confers adequate powers on the department in this regard. That there can be no justification for any Assistant Collector refusing to follow the Order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the Order of the higher appellate authority. "In view of the above, I have no other option but to follow the decision of Hon'ble CEGAT, as vice-versa will be ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n same other grounds which is not permissible in law. Hence the said order is to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that in this case a protective show-cause notice was issued to the appellants for the demand of erroneous refund sanctioned to them and the adjudicating authority has not passed the order on merits, and the same was considered by the lower appellate authority. Hence, the said order is to be accepted. 4. Heard and considered. 5. On careful exemption of the submissions made by both sides, we find that in this case originally show-cause notice dated 31.3.1998 was issued to the appellants for the demand on account of using the brand name by the other manufacturer for which the appellants are in entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
