9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the context of having followed the decisions of the Apex Court without appreciating the facts of the case. Undoubtedly, the use of the word 'blatantly' is ill-advised. Particularly, bearing in mind that the order in original dated 31st March, 2017 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs in his official capacity in the light of his understanding. The grievance against the order dated 31 March 2017 could have been worded better. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner that the use of the word 'blatantly' indicates disregarding the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not justified. The decision on whether the Review order dated 24th August, 2017 is without authority of law would have to depend upon the Affidavits which are to be filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vs. Kushalchand Co.(Civil Appeal No. 5808 of 2011) 2011 (265) E.L.T. 109 (Tri. Bang.) decided on 30 October 2015. It is submitted that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all. Therefore it is not open to any person in India to disregard it. Thus no occasion to Review the order dated 31 March 2017 can arise in these facts. It was further submitted that the Review order finds fault with the order dated 31 March 2017 for following the above Apex Court order. Our attention was drawn to the Review order dated 7 August 2017 which states that adjudicating authority appears to have blatantly followed a ratio of the Apex Court judgment without going into the basic elements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grievance of the Petitioner that the use of the word 'blatantly' indicates disregarding the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions are certainly binding on all and everybody in India is bound to follow the same. However while applying a ratio of a decision to another case, one has to examine facts in the case for consideration in the context of the observations of the Supreme Court in the context of facts being considered by it. Thus there is no substance in this grievance. Therefore, at this stage there is no occasion to interfere with an appeal filed by the Revenue to the Tribunal on the basis of the impugned Review Order dated 24 August 2017. Therefore we inform Dr. Kantawala that we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
