Judicial discipline requires reasoned departure from earlier orders before taking a contrary view on similar facts.

The Tribunal was required to follow judicial discipline and give a reasoned basis before departing from its earlier final order on the same activity and substantially similar facts. Because it did not examine the earlier decisions, did not explain why they were inapplicable, and did not hold them to be bad law, its finding that the assessee's activity amounted to manufacture could not stand. The HC held that this unexplained departure vitiated the Tribunal's orders, which were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after considering all contentions and the earlier adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring its earlier final order and the binding principle of judicial discipline while holding that the assessee's activity amounted to manufacture and while remanding the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis: The earlier round of litigation involving identical activity and substantially similar facts had been relied upon before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, did not examine the earlier orders, did not explain why they were inapplicable, did not hold them to be bad law, and did not record any reasoned basis for departing from the earlier view. In such circumstances, the settled requirement of judicial discipline and consistency demanded a reasoned consideration of the coordinate bench's earlier decision before taking a contrary view. The absence of such consideration vitiated the Tribunal's orders.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after considering all contentions and the earlier adjudication.

---