2009 (4) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal stresses adherence to appellate orders to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

DISHMAN PHARMA. & CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in not following precedent decisions of the Tribunal despite pending appeals before High Courts. The ... Adjudication - Multiplication of proceedings Issues:1. Failure to follow precedent decisions of the Tribunal due to pending appeals before High Courts.2. Multiplicity of proceedings due to rejection of remission application by Commissioner.3. Proper course of action by the Commissioner in light of pending High Court judgments.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the failure of the Commissioner to follow precedent decisions of the Tribunal based on pending appeals before the High Courts. The Commissioner disregarded the Tribunal's decisions in favor of the appellant, citing that the department had not accepted them and had filed appeals before the High Courts. However, the Commissioner did not provide evidence of any High Court orders staying the operation of the Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere filing of appeals does not justify ignoring precedent decisions. Citing judicial discipline, the Tribunal highlighted that subordinate authorities should unreservedly follow higher appellate authorities' orders unless their operation is suspended by a competent court.2. The issue of multiplicity of proceedings arose due to the rejection of the remission application by the Commissioner. This rejection led to the initiation of recovery proceedings against the appellant, with the Assistant Commissioner confirming dues of Rs. 1.96 crores. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's decision resulted in facing multiple proceedings at different stages. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner should have kept the proceedings in abeyance until the High Courts' judgments were available to prevent the multiplication of proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the best course of action was to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after the High Courts' decisions, thereby avoiding the burden of multiple proceedings on the appellant.3. In determining the proper course of action, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration after the High Courts' decisions. By awaiting the High Courts' judgments, the Tribunal aimed to prevent the unnecessary multiplication of proceedings for the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was based on the principle of judicial discipline and the need to follow higher appellate authorities' orders until their operation is suspended by a competent court. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of avoiding multiple proceedings and awaiting the outcome of the pending High Court judgments.