9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue), the appeals of the appellants were allowed by this Tribunal vide Order no. A-409/2008/WZB/C-IV-EB dated 22-4-2008. Hence, if this Tribunal is relying on the earlier decision of the Tribunal for the subsequent period in the appellants own case, the appellants shall not press for miscellaneous applications. 2.1 We find that one miscellaneous application is filed by Revenue vide application No. E/MA (ORS) 443/06-NBZ in appeal no. E/893/03-NBZ wherein a prayer has been made that there are contrary decisions on the issue, hence the matter be referred to the Larger Bench. On perusal of the said application, we find that the said application has been filed by revenue on 3-5-2006 and this Tribunal has passed the order in appellants own case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be discharged to DTA on such clearances". But no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court against the order passed by this Tribunal. Hence, the order passed by this Tribunal is squarely applicable to this case. Hence, the appeals are to be disposed of in the same manner. 4.1 On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that with regard to the issue namely "whether the supply of DTA against the payment in foreign exchange under 9.1 of the Export Import Policy could be accounted as DTA as per para 9.9 and accordingly are eligible for benefit of Notification 2/95-C.E." was held by this Tribunal vide order No. M1587/07-CII dated 3-9-2007 because the similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the order in favour of the appellants. Now the only question before us on today is that whether the order, passed by this Tribunal in appellants own case on identical facts and issues is binding on us or not? 7. We do not agree that the submissions of the ld. DR that earlier order has been passed in concession as we observe that in the said order, the ld. DR himself has admitted that appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 2/95 relying on the decision of Virlon Textile Mills (supra) and that part of the order has not been challenged by the department, the same has attained finality. Hence the issue in the appellants own case cannot be raised now. Further, we find that it is an admitted fact that the Hon'ble High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients. Subordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it, ultimately, falls into disrepute. These are the observations made by the Apex Court in Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 S.C. 261. 18. The Apex Court also had an occasion to notice similar impropriety in the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 S.C. 1767; wherein it was observed as under : "It is hardly necessary to emphasize that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one another decision." 19. Having said so, the impugned view taken by the Tribunal by no means can be said to be correct approach. Needless to mention that if the Tribunal wanted to differ to the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in the identical set of facts, the judicial discipline required reference to the larger bench. One co-ordinate bench finding fault with another co-ordinate bench is not a healthy way of dealing with the matters. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal on 20th November, 2009 incorporated at Exh.A to the petition. 20. In the result, impugned judgment dated 20th November, 2009 is quashed and set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other decisions brought to his notice." 9. Further in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 [2010 (262) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)] the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "18. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercise or judgement rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciates rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide : Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
