Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

April 2015

Precedent – Judicial Discipline – Conflicting decisions by CESTAT Benches – Appropriate Course for the second Bench is to refer the matter to the Larger Bench: Central Excise Act, 1944.

By Dr. K. Shivaram Senior Advocate Ajay r. Singh Advocate
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

CCE, Mumbai vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 2015 (315) ELT 161 (SC)

There is a conflict of opinion between two Benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Since two Benches of the same strength of Members have taken two conflicting views, that judicial discipline requires that instead of disagreeing with the view taken by the First Bench, the appropriate course for the second Bench would have been to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. This is the basic requirement of judicial discipline. Since this has not been done, the orders were set aside and remand both the appeals back to the Tribunal and directly the President to constitute a larger bench of three Members to decide the issue.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Co-operative Societies – Charge on immovable property of Member borrowing loan – Society to get charge recorded in record of rights: Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, 1961, section 48.

Probate of Will – Will though not probated, that does not prevent vesting of property of deceased in executor-Succession Act, 1925 section 211,213.