2010 (3) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v. CCE, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R.305 (S.C.) = 2006 (73) RLT 230 (S.C.), Appeal Precedent Tribunal in earlier case held that inserts for railways sleepers requiring precision machining were not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 223/88-C.E. succeeded by Notification No. 275/99-C.E. - Department having accepted principle laid down in earlier case, cannot be permitted to take different stand. Judicial discipline if co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal disagrees with test laid down in earlier case, then it should refer the matter to Larger Bench and refrain from taking upon itself not to follow such decision and take a contra view to avoid uncertainty and confusion. (b) Whether the Tribunal is right....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resh in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.C. Sharma v. Union of India, 1976 (3) SCC 474 and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, 2009 (233) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 465 (S.C.) = AIR 2001 SC 3173 followed by this Court in the case of Devang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.); wherein it was held that the judgment passed after considerable gap of time from the date of hearing was liable to be set aside observing that justice should not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done. 4. The aforesaid proposal was put to the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue to which there was no opposition. Consequently, the advocates appearing for the parties were directed to file minutes of ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the part of the advocates was to take the Court for ride at the cost of Revenue. 8. The advocate signing the minutes of order on behalf of Revenue was expected to be more diligent considering the fact that he was representing Union of India. It was obligatory on his part to protect the interest of the Revenue. Both advocates tried to tender their apology which this Court refused to accept finding, prima facie; that it was not a bona fide mistake. In both appeals, the question revolves around confiscation of 11 Gold bars. One can conveniently imagine the stakes involved. Obviously, in this backdrop, this Court refused to accept the minutes of order. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. However, for the purpose of record they are being....