AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the demand but, however, imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 three times what was imposed in the first round. The main issue of classification having been adjudicated against the Appellant in the impugned order, the same has been challenged along with the exorbitant penalty under Rule 173Q ibid. 2. Heard Shri J. Shankarraman, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent. 3. We find, at the outset, that the following is the direction of CESTAT while passing its Final Order No.1938/99, dated 06.08.1999 reported in 2000 (125) ELT 726 (Tribunal) : "8. ..... It is also brought to our notice that there are circulars issued by Govt. of Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion that the matter has to go back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration for the following reasons :- (a) It has been brought to our notice that the Board has issued circulars as noted above which has opined that the matter has been examined by the Board and classification of the item in question has to be adopted under 5902 of the Tariff. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranade Micro Nutrients v. C.C.E. has clearly laid down that the Boards circulars are binding on the adjudicating authority and the same is required to be applied by the authorities adjudicating the matter. ... ... .... (c) We also notice that the Commissioner has admitted in the impugned order that the item is tyre cord fabrics. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. We had carefully gone through the Final Order of the Bench and the Bench felt it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Original Authority to bring on record the findings on classification in the context of such Board circulars which are invariably binding on him. The above order of the Tribunal based on the submissions was due to the trust on the Representative which prompted the Tribunal not to give any finding on the classification since, apparently, there were 'Board's circulars' as pointed out, setting at rest the issue of classification involved in the present case. The same having not been considered in the initial Order-in-Original, a judicious remand order came to be passed, the same is admittedly accepted by the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c direction of the Bench to consider the issue in the light of the Board's circular, it means the issue has to be considered in the light of the instructions issued by the Board alone since, insofar as the other contentions regarding classification are concerned, are deemed to have been accepted by the Bench and hence, there was no necessity at all for the Commissioner to get into any other dimensions. To specifically adhere to the same/original grounds and reject the classification, is a blatant and deliberate defiance of the directions of the Bench. On this ground alone, the impugned order calls for interference as the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 8.1 Now, we delve back to the directions at para 12 (c) which reads as under ....