2017 (5) TMI 1746

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing a fresh order. According to the applicant, the submissions made during the hearing were not considered and, had they been, the outcome would have been materially different. 2. It is pointed out that decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been followed by the Tribunal and in the present matter that was, inappropriately, distinguished by adverting to another decision of the Tribunal which did depart from that line though other decisions of the Tribunal did not. More especially, it is pointed out, that the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal, of which I was a constituent, in Computer Graphics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli [Final Order Nos. 41185-4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch recall has been sought, it is seen that two of these are inter-linked and, requiring disposal according to the law enacted, are taken up at the outset : the impropriety of not subordinating to a decision of division bench and reference to a larger bench. According to Learned Counsel, the numerical inferiority of a single member Bench requires unquestioned acquiescence with orders of a division Bench. Furthermore, according to him, any difficulty in such acquiescence, not only by a single member Bench but also by another division bench, could be resolved only by placing the matter in the hands of the Hon'ble President to constitute a Larger Bench to accord its ruling on the impediment. 7. It is the submission of the Learned Counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;The question that now begs an answer is the validity of the contention of Learned Counsel that a different finding in favour of appellant would have been the outcome of consideration of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2006-TIOL-469-HC-KAR-CX = 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.)], of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Apex Drugs & Intermediates Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 834 (A.P.)], of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Rama Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2009-TIOL-100-HC-P&H], of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi v. Ashok ARC [200....