Case Law Details
Gemson Melt Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
In the absence of any clear finding by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise to support its disagreement with the finding of fact by the Commissioner of Appeals, mere disagreement with the order of the Higher Authority, namely, Commissioner (Appeals) will be opposed to the Principle of judicial discipline required to be maintained by Quasi Judicial Officers exercising Quasi Judicial functioning. Such, actions of the respondent No. 3 cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
The finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Appeals in respect of the fulfillment of the requirement under Notification No. 20/2007 dated 25.04.2007 by the petitioner, in view of the dismissal of the Revenue appeals by the CESTAT has attained finality. Such findings of fact cannot be unilaterally disregarded by the Departmental Officer merely because it was not agreeable to them. It was incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to reflect in its order, impugned in the present proceedings, the grounds and reasons for disregarding the said finding of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals).
In view of the finding of fact by a Higher Authority, namely, the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the fulfillment of the requirement by the petitioner making them eligible for claiming the refund, the same cannot be disregarded by a Subordinate Authority, namely, the respondent No. 3 unilaterally without there being any provision under the law to review such findings by such Subordinate Authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Yes… That judgment was pronounced recently… wherein the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held that the findings of the appellate commissioner are binding on the subordinate authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner and he cannot take a different view merely because he holds a different view.