TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicial indiscipline by not following binding precedent in case of S.D. Fine Chemicals affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was followed in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in case of E. Merck under identical facts for the past period, which had attained finality since no appeal was filed against that decision ? [ii] Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing the Respondent to argue & lead evidence as regards percentage of value addition achieved in the processes undertaken, at the final hearing stage, especially when such an allegation was never raised either in show cause notice or in the appeal filed before it and no evidence was led at any earlier stage ? [iii] Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that activity of purification undertaken by the Appellants amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, clearances of purif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o dispute. M/s. Merck filed declaration under Rule 173C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the capacity of a principal manufacturer in the unit of the appellants. In the said declaration, the details of activity undertaken by the appellants on the duty paid Hexane and Petroleum Ether were furnished to the Department. The Revenue had relied upon the visit which was paid by the Superintendent of Central Excise, RangeIV, Belapur I Division. There was a communication dated 27th February, 2001 issued by the said Superintendent. The appellants point out that the above products were classified under SubHeading 27.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The purified Hexane and Petroleum Benzine 6080 which were cleared by the appellants after repacking to M/s. Merck were also classified under this chapter of Central Excise Tarrif. The appellants claimed to have replied to the letter of the Superintendent and made him known this entire process. They were of the view that the Department is satisfied with the explanation and no show cause notice was issued. However, despite such extensive correspondence carried out with the Revenue, the appellants were called upon to pay the duty on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w the process undertaken by the appellants was explained in details before the Commissioner while he passed the Order in Original and also before the Tribunal. 10. Mr.Sreedharan submits that similar proceedings were initiated against M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd.. There is an order passed in the case of M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd., namely, final order No.995/98C dated 12th October, 1998. He submits that now what is done by the appellants is identical inasmuch as what M/s. E. Merk did earlier has now been assigned as job work to the appellants. M/s. Merck Specialties Pvt. Ltd. are same as M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd.. M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd. had undertaken similar process and identical activity at its Taloja Unit. The show cause notices were issued to M/s. E. Merk and alleging that the activity of purification carried out by said M/s. E. Merk amounts to manufacture. The allegation is that the process undertaken by said M/s. E. Merk cannot be said to be not bringing out any new commodity or article. Yet the Department / Revenue persisted with its stand and a show cause notice was issued to M/s. E. Merk (i) Ltd. On that, an order was passed on 8th August, 1992 (AnnexureE). Relying upon the findings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les, proceeded to allow the appeal of the Revenue and directed remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for recomputation of the duty demand within the normal period and also for allowing Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the raw materials, subject to submission of documentary evidence. However, all this will have to be done bearing in mind the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal in para6.1 and 6.2 of the impugned order. 12. Mr. Sreedharan submits that ordinarily none would complain if the remand is necessitated so as to render justice to both sides or to decide an issue which has been left out of consideration. If the remand is in the interest of justice and subserves the larger purpose, then, ordinarily a higher Appellate Court would not interfere with such an order. However, the Revenue insisted that the appeal be allowed in its entirety, whereas the appellant before us insisted that it should be dismissed in the light of the earlier round of litigation with M/s. E. Merk. The Tribunal does not adopt the course of giving a finality to the issue but rendering some tentative opinion and thereafter remanding the case. That serves no purpose, according to Mr.Sreedhar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is dated 8th February, 2008 and which was the subject matter of the proceedings pertaining a demand for the period January, 2003 to November, 2007. There is a second show cause notice dated 16th December, 2008 which is also referred to by the Tribunal. We find from the factual narration in the Tribunal's order that the Tribunal was concerned with the validity and legality of these two show cause notices whereunder a demand was raised for the period January, 2003 to November, 2007 and from December, 2007 to September, 2008. The ground alleged in the show cause notice is that the activity of repacking / relabeling / refining of laboratory chemicals undertaken by the appellants in respect of Petroleum Benzine and Hexane for Chromatography Lichrosolv would amount to "manufacture" and, therefore, it was required to discharge excise duty liability. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that these activities did not result into manufacture of a new product and held that the said process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to "manufacture". 16. In the memo of Appeal as also in the oral arguments before the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the standards laid d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier order is no longer a good law. We find substance in the argument that judicial discipline requires all this to be done and carefully and meticulously. There is a larger purpose being served by certainty and finality of judgments. We do not see as to how after decades of the enactments, such as, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and particularly Section 11 thereof that it has to repeatedly emphasized that judicial Tribunals and Courts of law have to follow the rule of consistency and certainty so also finality of judgments. There is a definite purpose being served because of all this and namely parties before the Court of law or a Tribunal and litigants and citizens can then proceed on the assumption that the judgments and decisions rendered earlier in their own at least cases on facts would have a binding effect. If certain issues and questions have been dealt with earlier then such orders may also govern cases of other litigants if they involve identical facts and circumstances. Thus public interest is subserved when a Court of law or judicial Tribunal follows such principles. This is embodied in the explanation to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 18. The Apex Court also had an occasion to notice similar impropriety in the case of Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, AIR 1965 SC 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 matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be regretted that the learned single Judge departed from this traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the question himself." The similar expressions are to be found in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to be reached. If the judgment is not correct then equally reasons have to be assigned for such a crucial conclusion. This is the rule which has been emphasized. Rule of judicial discipline requires reference being made to a larger bench in case of differences of opinions or views between the benches of the Tribunal on identical facts. A healthy way of deciding matters and to maintain purity and sanctity of the judicial process is emphasized by this Court in Mercedes Benz (supra) and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This binds the Tribunal. We have also cautioned the Tribunal in number of cases that the process of adjudication and in Revenue matters requires an early finality to vexed issues. If the issues are raised repeatedly then all more there ought to be certainty and end to the litigation. In Revenue matters none is benefited by delays. If the delays are caused by repeated remand of proceedings then that has to be avoided. If its earlier orders have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, then, the least that is expected is that they are dealt with and considered seriously and a conclusion is reached about their applicability to the ....