TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner Company is engaged in manufacturing sophisticated machineries like Induction Melting/Heating Furnace and Welder, and also parts thereof. The Central Government has issued Notification No. 10/97-C.E. granting exemption to goods, namely, scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipments when supplied to public funded research institutes and such similar customers if a certificate was issued for such requirement to the institution by the Central Government Officer as specified in the said Notification. The petitioner Company has been receiving certificates as above from institutes like Indian Institute of Technology, National Physical Laboratory, Electro Optical Instruments Research Academy, Vikram Sarabhai Space Center, etc. for goods like Vacuum and Air Induction Melting and Casting facility, induction coil for furnace, etc., and accordingly the petitioner has been selling and supplying such scientific instruments and apparatus against these certificates availing exemption of above Notification. 6. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice on 18-10-2007 for above types of clearances made from September, 2005 to October, 2006 demanding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ahmedabad while deciding petitioner's Appeals and Appellate Authority is not at all concerned with the revenue's option for filing an Appeal against a final decision of the CESTAT though it may be a concern of the Executive/Administrative Officers of the Central Excise Department, and thus, the reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for not following the binding decision of the CESTAT in the petitioner's own case shows Revenue bias and lack of impartiality. He has further submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not only wholly without jurisdiction but also unreasonable and arbitrary and hence, it offends the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article-14 of the Constitution of India. He has, therefore, submitted that this ex-facie illegal order is non est and hence, the petitioner approached this Court for appropriate order, relief or direction in the peculiar facts of this case. 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dave relied on decision of this Court in the case of Milcent Appliances Pvt. Ltd., v. Union of India, reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 130 (Guj.) wherein it is held that the order of the Appellate Commissioner disregarding directio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are options with the Revenue to review the same and to prefer an appeal against the said order. Therefore, the benefit of the said order cannot be accorded to the appellant at this stage because the appeal period is not over. In view of above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the lower authority." It is true that the above observations are made by the Commissioner (Appeals) after discussing the facts before him in the Appeal wherein he has observed that the notification has provided the exemption from excise duty on the goods which are scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipments etc., whereas the appellant was not manufacturing the goods used as scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipments etc. though the institute has issued certificate in this regard. He has, therefore, observed that the said exemption is not available on the basis of the certificate issued by the institute. The Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed that there is condition relating to value of goods purchased by the institute which is in respect of Serial No. (1) and (2) not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in a financial year, whereas, the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court to function as a Court of Appeal for Excise matters, it is the function of the High Court to hold and observe that the officers who are performing quasi-judicial functions will not behave in the manner in which the Assistant Collector on remand has behaved in the instant case. 16. When the above decision was challenged before the Apex Court, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (supra) not only dismissed the department's Appeal but also observed that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the Department in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. 17. Even with regard to the Revenue's argument about non-maintainability of this petition on the ground of alternative remedy to f....