9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unil and ld. DR Shri Yashpal Sharma for the respondent- revenue. 2. Assessee is the appellant. The appeal is preferred against an order dated 07.10.2013 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-I. The appellate Authority disposed of two appeals preferred by the assessee against adjudication orders dated 26.10.2012 and 21.02.2013. This appeal is preferred against the order of the lower appellate Authority in so far as it pertains to rejection of the assessee's appeal against adjudication order bearing reference No.07/HMA/ADC/D-I/2013 dated 21.02.2013. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee vide show cause notice dated 17.04.2012 covering the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, alleging removal of excisable goods without remittan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed process does not amount to manufacture, exigible to Duty. In para 24.1, the primary Authority after adverting to the several precedents referred to, including the decision of this Tribunal (supra) observed that since the judgment of this Tribunal was appealed before the Delhi High Court but the High Court had dismissed Revenue's appeal only on the ground of limitation and not on merits, the Tribunal decision had not attained finality; thus treating this decision as unworthy of efficacy as a binding precedent. 8. Aggrieved by the primary order, assessee preferred an appeal which stands rejected by the impugned order. Para 6 of the impugned order clearly adverts to the contention urged on behalf of the assessee, that the controversy is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. It is a trite principle that a final order of this Tribunal, enunciating a ratio decidendi, is an operative judgment per-se; not contingent on ratification by any higher forum, for its vitality or precedential authority. The fact that Revenue's appeal against the judgment of this Tribunal was rejected only on the ground of bar of limitation and not in affirmation of the conclusions recorded on merits, does not derogate from the principle that a judgment of this Tribunal is per se of binding precedential vitality qua adjudicating authorities lower in the hierarchy, such as a primary adjudicating authority or a Commissioner (Appeals). This is too well settled to justify elaborate analyses and exposition, of this protean principle. 12. Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the appeal and do so after waiving pre-deposit. On the preceding analyses, the appeal is allowed and the concurrent orders of the primary Authority and of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-I dated 07.10.2013 (impugned) are quashed. 15. In the circumstances and since the Authorities below have adjudicated against the assessee, despite and clearly contrary to the binding precedent and thereby subjected the assessee to an avoidable litigative trauma and the accompanying expenditure, we allow the appeal with costs of ₹ 10,000/- payable by Revenue to the appellant-assessee within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 16. We direct that copies of this order be communicated to the Central Board of Excise and Customs an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
