Case Law Details
Jumbo Bags Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether demand or recovery notice passed against the judgement delivered by the apex court is justified law?
In the instant case, the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of duty against the sales effected by them against the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) against foreign exchange. The Revenue rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the duty demanded. The challenge made to the rejection before the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Appeals were unsuccessful.
High Court states that, incidentally, the petitioner had earlier claimed pre-deposit made by them for availing their right of appeal before the CESTAT and when the amount was paid belatedly, they had claimed interest on the same, which came to be refunded by both the original authority and the Appellate Commissioner. As against the rejection, they had preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, in its order dated 29.08.2016, had rightly rejected the Revenue’s claim, holding that the order of the Tribunal had merged in the dismissal order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the CESTAT has no jurisdiction there is no further scope for the Revenue to open its case. In these proceedings before the CESTAT, Revenue had raised grounds touching upon the decisions of Ginni International Limited (supra) and Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. (supra). In the present case, a similar attempt is made by the department to distinguish the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petitioner’s own case. It is rather unfortunate that these Quasi Judicial Authorities have disregarded the underlying principle of judicial decisions and its binding effect. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the appeal of the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal, which was in favour of the importer, merges with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under the principle of ‘Doctrine of Merger’. The attempt on the part of the Revenue to interpret the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and attempting to give life to the claim, which they had lost before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is nothing, but an act, which could be termed as an act of contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order. Judicial discipline mandates Quasi Judicial Authorities to extend sanctity to the binding precedents, more so, when such orders are from the highest Court of the Country. This Court expresses its disappointment on the conduct of the conduct of the concerned authorities in having scant respect towards the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For all the foregoing reasons, HC is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
