2005 (4) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate, submitted that at the time of hearing of the Appeal involving the question of eligibility of the Appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. without producing the requisite certificate at the time of clearance of the goods, the Advocate for the Appellants had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) which fully support their case and had been followed by the Tribunal in many cases; that the Tribunal, instead of following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, has followed the judgment in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) without stating how and why the ratio of j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w against following a precedent blindly where the facts and issues are not identical. (f)      Case Law on wide scope of powers of recall and recall of orders when matters not heard on merits. (g)     No Appeal lies sans grievance. (h)     Case Law on judicial discipline. 3.Opposing the prayer, Shri U. Raja Ram, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Final order in question has been passed by the Tribunal after considering all the submissions made by the Applicant. The Tribunal did not find any "substance in the contention of the learned Advocate that production of Certificate as required by the Notification for availing the benefit of exemption is....