TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: The Facts: 3. The petitioner is a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacture of motor vehicles and part thereof at its factory located at Chakarn, Pune. The petitioner is selling the said vehicles to its dealers at the factory gate. The said vehicles are cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty on transaction value at the factory gate. The dealer is free to engage his own transporter and carry the goods from the factory gate of the petitioner to his premises. However, in terms of dealer agreement, petitioner arranges for transportation/transit insurance of behalf of the dealers and thereby undertakes to deliver the goods at the doorstep/p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CCE, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31, Respondent No. 2 dropped the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under two show cause notices. The said order was not challenged by the Revenue as such attained finality. 7. However, despite the above order, again fresh show cause notices were issued for further period. On contest they culminated in the orders-in original The said orders were challenged by the petitioners before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune without much success. Against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), petitioner preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 26th May, 2008 allowed all the appeals filed by the petitioner and rejected appeals filed by the Revenue. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue to a larger bench, which was mandatory as per law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time. Submissions: 12. M Sridharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, with out going into the merits of the issues involved, urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is ex facie perverse and contrary to the judicial discipline laid down by Apex Court as well as by this Court from time to time. He brought to our notice earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner itself reproduced at Exh.G; wherein the Tribunal has observed as under: 5. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled in favour of the appellants by the Apex Courts decision in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sable value since place of removal was factory gate. This decision did not address the grievance of the Revenue and did not consider all the facts and did not lay down a clear ratio. Therefore, with due respect to the decision, we beg to differ and have considered the issue afresh. (emphasis supplied) 14. Based on the above two judgments of the Tribunal running counter to each other, learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the serious consequences of unsettling law resulting from the approach adopted by the Tribunal. 15. Mr. Pardeshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue tried to support the approach adopted by the Tribunal but could not take his submission to the logical end. Consideration: 16. Having he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and would not know how to advise their clients. Subordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it, ultimately, falls into disrepute. These are the observations made by the Apex Court in Sundazjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 S.C. 261. 18. The Apex Court also had an occasion to notice similar impropriety in the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 S.C. 1767; wherein it was observed as under: "It is hardly necessary to emphasize that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a mailer is inclined to take the view th....