9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. A/399-402/2010/EB dated 01.12.2010 wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- "2 The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the issue involved in all the four appeals is that whether restriction on distribution of input credit relation to one unit of a manufacturer/service provider to another unit of the same manufacturer/service provider is required to be applied. 3. The Ld. SDR agrees that this is the issue involved in all these appeals. We find that this issue stands settled by the Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore, holding as follows;- The combined reading of the Rule 7 and the clarificatory circular dt.23/8/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er period and prays that following the ratio of the above decision, their appeals be allowed. 3. On the other hand, the learned A.R. for the Revenue strongly opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE Delhi III - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (S.C.), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCe & Cus. vs. Gujarat Heave Chemicals Ltd. - 2011 (22) STR 610 (Guj) and this Tribunal's stay order No. S/116/WZB/Mum/2011/SMB Cr. IV dated 12.10.2011 in the case of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. It is further pointed out by the learned A.R. that while deciding the appellants case on the earlier occasion by the Division Bench, this Tribunal has not considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld 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 requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r thing, it is the quality of certainty. That quality would totally disappear if Judges of co-ordinate jurisdiction in a High Court start overruling one anothers 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 incorp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
