9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal on 27 September, 2016. 2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant to assail the order dated 29 January, 2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bus bodies and had claimed exemption under Notification dated 01 March, 2006 in respect of buses cleared to M/s Delhi Metro Railway Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DMRC‟). The order passed by the Commissioner held that the Appellant was not eligible for exemption and so the demand of excise duty was confirmed. The Tribunal also did not accept the submission of the Appellant and dismissed the Appeal. 3. The Appellant, thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was ul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and seek appropriate rectification/change in the excise duty. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 25 April, 2019 is reproduced below : "7. In view of the subsequent judgment of the CESTAT granting exemption to Tata Motors qua the chassis, the liability of the Plaintiff would have to be determined. The Plaintiff is thus accordingly permitted to approach the CESTAT placing on record all the subsequent developments post the judgment of the Supreme Court, including the judgment in favour of Tata Motors and seek appropriate rectification/change in the excise duty which it is to deposit in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 8. On 10th January, 2019, learned counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. Prashant Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been deposited and according to him the entire duty would come to a total of Rs. 52 lakhs approximately. Since, this Court has not adjudicated the exact liability of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is permitted to approach the CESTAT by filing an appropriate application in Excise Appeal Nos. 1180/2010 and 1727/2010. In the said application, the Plaintiff shall ensure that DMRC, Tata Motors and the Commissioner Excise, Jaipur and Lucknow are also impleaded as parties. 14. The interim relief granted on 10th January, 2019 shall continue for a period of four weeks from today i.e. till 25th May, 2019 subject to further orders passed by the CESTAT. The CESTAT, may also consider the prayer for interim relief sought by the Plaintiff in respect of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant by a detailed order and held that the Appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 06/2006. It is against this order that the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was ultimately converted into a Civil Appeal. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 08 August, 2017 has been reproduced above. The Supreme Court heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the relevant matter and then observed that it found no merit in the Appeal. The Civil Appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The issue that arises for consideration is whether it would be open to the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court on 08 August, 2017 in a Civil Appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order bin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court. The order of the Tribunal has merged with the order of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Tribunal cannot review the order dated 27 September, 2016 dismissing the Excise Appeal No. 1727 of 2010 filed by the Applicant. It is for the Applicant to move an appropriate application before the Supreme Court, if so advised. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant has stated that some protection may be granted by the Tribunal since it would take some time to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court and in this context it is pointed out that the High Court had also granted protection to the Appellant for a limited period. 14. This request made by the Appellant seems to be justified. Accordingly, while rejecting the three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
