75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

February 2015

[2014-TIOL-2305-CESTAT-DEL] M/s RGL Convertors vs. CCE, Delhi-I

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ignoring judicial discipline and recording conclusions diametrically contrary to judgment of Tribunal is either illustrative of gross incompetence or clear irresponsible conduct and a serious transgression of quasi-judicial norms.

Facts:
Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant alleging removal of exigible goods without payment of duty and transgression of the other provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Various Tribunal decisions were placed on record to prove that the process does not amount to manufacture. However since the Tribunal decision was appealed before the Delhi High Court by Revenue and the same was rejected only on the ground of limitation and not on merits, the commissioner (Appeals) held that the Tribunal decision had not attained finality thus treating the same as unworthy of efficacy, rejected the appeal.

Held:
It is a trite principle that a final order of a 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. Such perverse orders further clog the appellate docket of this Tribunal, already burdened with a huge pendency, apart from accentuating the faith deficit of the citizen/ assessee, in departmental adjudication.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015-TIOL-87-CESTAT-AHM] Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhavnagar vs. M/s. Madhvi Procon Pvt. Ltd.

[2014] 52 Taxmann.com 341 (Chhattisgarh) Hotel East Park vs. UOI