Binding Tribunal ruling on identical facts bars departmental refusal of refund under judicial discipline and res judicata

A refund claim arising from import of ammonium chloride was treated as covered by an earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts between the same parties. The later departmental authority was bound by that final appellate decision and could not refuse relief on a contrary view, because judicial discipline requires subordinate authorities to follow binding Tribunal orders. The matter was also treated as governed by res judicata between the parties. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from import of ammonium chloride was covered by the earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts and whether the departmental authority could disregard that binding decision.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order had already decided the same question between the same parties on identical facts. The later authority was bound to follow that ruling, as judicial discipline requires subordinate departmental authorities to act in conformity with final appellate decisions. A lower authority cannot sit in judgment over a binding Tribunal order and refuse relief on a contrary view. The Tribunal also treated the matter as covered by res judicata between the parties.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be covered in favour of the assessee and the contrary order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned rejection was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental authority is bound by a final Tribunal on identical facts between the same parties and cannot disregard it on a contrary view; judicial discipline requires adherence to the binding appellate ruling.

---