Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

September 2014

Precedent – Judicial discipline – Third Member is bound to consider judgement of Division bench – CESTAT order was unsustainable for non consideration of law in favour of assessee:

By Dr. K Shivaram Senior Advocate Ajay R. Sing h Advocate
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Larsen and Toubro Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise; 2014 (306) ELT 27 (Bom.)(HC)

There was a difference of opinion between the Judicial member and the Technical Member. The appeal before the Tribunal was therefore referred to a Third Member. The Third Member held against the appellant/assessee. Prior to the decision of the Third Member, there was a decision of the Tribunal which supported the appellant’s contention before the Tribunal. That decision was brought to the notice of the learned Third Member before passing the order. The Third Member was bound to consider the judgment of the Tribunal. He, however, did not do so.

Prima facie, at least, even before the Tribunal the position for law appears to be in favour of the appellant. Unfortunately, the third member did not consider the judgment of the Tribunal.

The court also observed that the order of Tribunal was referred not because it has any precedent value in this court but is a indication of what the impugned order of the third member may well have been, had the judgement been considered by the learned third member.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Precedent – Law declared by Supreme Court – Binding on all High Courts – High Court Judge sitting singly bound by Supreme Court decision rather than Division Bench Judgement which is contrary to Supreme Court. (Constitution of India, Article 141)

The tightening noose around insider trading – net gets wider, more legal fictions applied to catch offenders