2010 (8) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rger Bench consequent to the order passed in the matter of M/s. Eastern Medikit Ltd. on 22nd February, 2008 which reads  thus : "Heard at length Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue on the point of waiver of pre-deposit and stay. We are of the view that the question arising for consideration is not concluded by the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd., 2000 (117) E.L.T. 400 on which heavy reliance has been placed on behalf of the assessee/appellant and the decision requires reconsideration. The dispute relates to exemption under Notification No. 6/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 read with ft Notification No. 21/02-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 with respect to item figuring as item 34 of the lis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Larger Bench. 3. In Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Apex Court in this regard had ruled thus : "9. It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. This is particularly true when the earlier decision is rendered by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affected by decisions of Tribunals or Courts have a right to expect that those exercising judicial functions will follow the reason or ground of the judicial decision in the earlier cases on identical matters. Classification of particular goods adopted in earlier decision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. The Tribunal in its order in Excise Appeal No. 217 of 2007 in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, decided on 30-6-2010 [2010 (256) E.L.T. 737 (Tri. - LB)], has elaborately discussed this issue and has also considered the circumstances under which the matter can be referred to a Larger Bench. 6. The order under reference does not disclose compliance of the requirement of law as laid down by the Apex Court in relation to the reference order. 7. In fact, the reference order clearly states that the question for consideration does not stand concluded by the decision in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore v. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd., reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 400 (T). At the same time, it has been obser....