Court sets aside orders, petitioners not required to pursue appeal, Commissioner bound by Tribunal's judgment.

The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 16.12.2016 and 30.11.2016, allowing the petitions. The Commissioner was found to be bound by the Tribunal's judgment, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the petitioners were not required to pursue an appeal, given the circumstances and the binding nature of the previous judgments.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product for DEPB benefits.
2. Binding effect of previous Tribunal and Supreme Court judgments.
3. Relegation to appellate remedy and its efficacy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Product for DEPB Benefits:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, which classified their exported product under item no. 428 of the DEPB Schedule as 'Bearing Races' instead of item no. 68B as 'Alloy Steel Forging (Machined)'. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,63,00,000 with interest and penalties. The petitioners argued that the same product had previously been classified as 'Alloy Steel Forging (Machined)' under the Duty Drawback Scheme by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that there was no material change to justify a different classification by the department.

2. Binding Effect of Previous Tribunal and Supreme Court Judgments:
The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the petitioners, determining that the product required further processing to be used as bearing races. This conclusion was based on various certificates and inquiries, including those from the Chartered Engineer and the Superintendent of Central Excise, which confirmed that the exported product could not be used directly as bearing races. The Tribunal's findings were independent and based on substantial evidence, and the Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeal, thereby confirming the Tribunal's judgment.

3. Relegation to Appellate Remedy and Its Efficacy:
The petitioners argued that the Commissioner was bound by the Tribunal's judgment and could not take a different view. They sought the Court's intervention to avoid the requirement of filing statutory appeals, which would necessitate a mandatory pre-deposit. The Court noted that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the issue in the context of the Duty Drawback Scheme, and there was no material change in circumstances. The Commissioner’s reliance on the petitioners’ classification for domestic clearances had already been addressed by the Tribunal. The Court concluded that relegating the petitioners to the appellate forum would be futile and the mandatory pre-deposit made the appeal an onerous and ineffective remedy.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 16.12.2016 and 30.11.2016, allowing the petitions. The Commissioner was found to be bound by the Tribunal's judgment, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, and the petitioners were not required to pursue an appeal, given the circumstances and the binding nature of the previous judgments.

---