2021 (12) TMI 479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2015 (38) STR 841 (Tri-Mumbai) especially when the same was after considering the effect of Notification No.9/2009 which now has been superceded by Notification No.12/2013 which is applicable in the facts of the present case ?" Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the said Act) are that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is authorised to develop Information Technology and related services at the Special Economic Zone at MIHAN, Nagpur under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. For the purposes of development of the aforesaid services the appellant appoint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the services rendered after the grant of approval. The appellant preferred an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the said appeal on 27/11/2015. The appellant then approached the Appellate Tribunal which by the order dated 10/06/2016 dismissed the same by holding that the appellant had not got the services in question duly approved by the Approval Committee and hence it was not entitled for the claim for refund under Notification No.12/2013. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. 3. Shri J. Sanghvi, learned counsel for the appellant interalia submitted that the Tribunal was bound by its earlier order dated 10/10/2014 reported in 2015 (38) S.T.R. 841 in the case of Mahindra Engineering Services Lt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o him the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conditions requisite for claiming the benefit under Notification No.12/2013 had not been fulfilled by the appellant. Since Notification No.12/2013 was an exemption Notification, the Tribunal rightly held that all necessary conditions were required to be fulfilled for claiming benefit. He referred to the stand taken in that regard in the submissions filed to the present appeal and submitted that the appeal ought to be dismissed. He relied upon the decisions in U.O.I. vs. Ganesh Metal Processors Inds. 2003(151) E.L.T. 21 and Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai vs. M/s M. Ambalal and Co. 2010 (260) E.L.T. 487 in support of his contention. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otherwise we find that merely because a particular argument was not raised when the earlier proceedings were decided would not be a sufficient ground to disregard an earlier adjudication made on merits. It would be open for the Tribunal in subsequent proceedings to doubt the correctness of the view earlier taken and refer the question to a larger bench but it would not be permissible to disregard the earlier view on the ground that a particular contention was not raised when the earlier order was passed. 6. Since we prima facie find that the appellant was justified in relying upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd. (supra) and that the Tribunal was not justified in disregarding its earlier order, w....