TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Appellant. Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard Shri Anil Khanna, ld. Representative for the Department and Shri Alok Arora, ld. Counsel for the Respondent. This is an application filed for rectification of order dated 27th August, 2008 passed in Excise Appeal No. 4409 of 2004. The contention of the applicant i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amendra Textile Processors case was pronounced on 29th September, 2008 and it was published thereafter in the Excise Law Times. Apparently the Tribunal had no advantage of having a copy of the judgment before it was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors case while deciding the case in hand on 27th August, 2008 and being so, it cannot be said that there was any mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "8. The High Court of Madras in V. Guard Industries Ltd. while considering a similar question in a case where rectification application was made after the judgement of the Supreme Court in Shanuga Traders etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in 114 STC 1, and dealing with the contention that it was not open to the assessee to seek such rectification by placing reliance on a ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal-LB) stands overruled. The reference is answered accordingly." Plain reading of above para would disclose that once the Supreme Court has taken a view on any point of law, it is not permissible for the subordinate authorities to take contrary view on the same issue and in case any authority decides to the contrary....