2024 (5) TMI 1579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this Tribunal on 22-8-2023 [(2024) 19 Centax 29 (Tri. - Mumbai)], it has been stated that Applicant has 'accepted the tax liability' raised in the Audit report for the period post July, 2012 and paid the adjudged amount with interest. Learned Counsel for the Appellant took us to Para 3 of the said order in which such observation was made and argued that there was never acceptance of any demand, interest and penalty by the Appellant and from the very beginning of investigation, it had contested the demand and, therefore, the above finding needs to be modified on the basis of factual position. 2.1 On the other hand Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department, while justifying the order passed as proper, took us throu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s that earlier findings of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlight Industries India Limited v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tirunelveli reported in 2019-TIOL-879-CESTAT-MAD  and Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. reported in 2022-TIOL-1192-CESTAT-MUM  were not followed in this order apparently as no consensus emerged with the decision and, therefore, being Co-ordinate Bench, the matter should have been referred to the President for constitution of Larger Bench as per the judgment of Gammon India reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) & Mercedez Benz reported in 2010 (252) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant also reiterated the same during course of hear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by well differentiating/distinguishing those judgments that would not require a reference to the President for constitution of Larger Bench for the reason that instead of mitigating the grievance of the parties here, it would cause undue hardship to them. A departure from not well noted convention is permissible and in the judicial side also, departure from binding oneself from following judicial precedent to mitigate grievous wrong is permissible, as has been recognised by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maktul v. Manbhari, reported in AIR 1958 SC 918, relevant para of which reads : "... Previous decisions should not be followed to the extent that grievous wrong may result; and accordingly the courts ordinarily will not ad....