Precedent — Judicial discipline — Commissioner (Appeals) must follow declaration of law by higher forum.

  In a matter on interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) while granting stay held that issue was covered by earlier order of ITAT in the appellant’s own case and granted unconditional stay. However while deciding the main appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow the earlier order of the Tribunal.

  The Tribunal on the above aspect observed that the Commissioner (Appeal) in his order is not disputing the fact that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. However, he has observed that the Tribunal’s order relied on Mumbai High Court’s judgment in the case of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. (2009) 233 ELT 301 (Bom.) which was misplaced. The Tribunal observed that if the Revenue was aggrieved with the earlier order of the Tribunal, it was open for them to file an appeal thereagainst before higher Appellate forum. The judicial discipline requires the lower authority to follow the declaration of law by higher Appellate forum. Reference in this regard was made to Mumbai High Court’s judgment in the case of  CCE, Nasik v. M/s. Jain Vanguard Polybutylene Ltd., (2010) 256 ELT 523 (Bom.) as also the Tribunal’s decision in the case of M/s. Gujarat Composite Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad (2006) 195 ELT 310 (Tri. Mum.). Therefore, it was not open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to take a different view when an identical issue was decided in the same party’s case by the earlier order of the Tribunal.