TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have been perverted to such extent by demonstrated unwillingness ro accord legally sanctioned closure to a process initiated by issue of show cause notice that, itself, implies merely tentative conclusion of incorrect assessment under section 17 of Customs Act, 1962 as cause for short-payment of duties of customs at the time of clearance under section 47 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts leading to the impugned communication are unimpeachable and, thereby, common ground of both sides. Commissioner of Customs, Bengaluru City, and the putative adjudicating authority, issued notice [show cause notice no. 267/2023 dated 11th November 2023] of intent to alter classification of impugned goods from the declared tariff item 8528 5900 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to proposed tariff item 8471 4190 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In accordance with section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962, the dispute was to have been resolved by 10th November 2024 but, instead of consummation, resort was had to the exception available in section 28(9A) of Customs Act, 1962, as informed in impugned communication [no. GEN/ADJ/COMM/700/2023-ADJ dated 08th April 2024], to defer d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... process established by law. For good measure, Learned Authorized Representative also argued that acknowledgement of the plea of the appellant would render the salutary provision impugned before us to be dead letter. 5. In addition to common ground of facts, we also note, from the submission on behalf of the respondent-Commissioner, that reliance could not be placed thereon for want of finality thereto, that the decisions of the Tribunal in re Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt Ltd and in re Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd were mere 'milestones' until classification was agitated and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that there is no controverting of the averment by Learned Counsel that the present dispute presents like controversy in classification. We may not be in the wrong for not being persuaded by this line of argument on the part of Learned Authorized Representative inasmuch as, with merit of rival claims on classification not ready for resolution yet in this appeal and with no suggestion of the same, or like controversy on classification, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as it advances the proposition of superfluity of the Tribunal in the scheme of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate 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 - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. xxxxx 8. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affected by decisions of Tribunals or Courts have a right to expect that those exercising judicial functions will follow the reason or ground of the judicial decision in the earlier cases on identical matters. Classification of particular goods adopted in earlier decisions must not be lightly disregarded in subsequent decisions, lest such judicial inconsistency should shake public confidence in the administration of justice. It is, however, equally true that it is vital to the administration of justice that those exercising judicial power must have the necessary freedom to doubt the correctness of an earlier decision if and when subsequent proceedings being to light what is perceived by them as an erroneous decision in the earlier case. In such circumstances, it is but natural and reasonable and indeed efficacious that the case is referred to a larger Bench. This is what was done by the Bench of two members who in their reasoned order pointed out what they perceived to be an error of law in the earlier decision and stated the points for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lief that anything other than a decision communicated through order-in-original is within the sphere, even if under statutory authority, of executive action excluding merit review, the impugned order is wanting in the flesh of reason and bones of justification that could have enabled enable Learned Authorized Representative to plead sufficient defence. It is no wonder that the pair of them are compelled to approach 'blasphemy' in proposing that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; a feeble proposition, at that, coming from a branch of the tax establishment whose very existence is co-terminus with that of the Tribunal. Talk about the worm in the apple. Be that as it may, it behoves us to address it, if not for any other reason than to protect officers of the court from calumny in the highest traditions of buck passing. 9. Adjudication is a 'quasi-judicial' function; by its very definition, it is the vesting of judicial jurisdiction in an executive authority even if such executive authority draws its sustenance from a provision in a statute that also vests foundational judicial determination in the same officer. The law directs such determination in tax disputes, both at the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose off quasi-judicial proceedings, is vested with such jurisdiction only in conjunction with notice for burdening of duties and/or saddling of detriments to be severed upon signing order thereto. Accordingly, an act of such authority in relation to disposal of show cause notice emanates as decision of '(a) authority competent to pass any order or decision under this act...' as set out in section 2 of Customs Act, 1962 to define 'adjudicating authority' and, thereby, vesting jurisdiction under section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 to decide appeal arising thereto. 11. We may now address the sole aspect pending resolution in this dispute: the contention of the appellant that section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962 has come into play with elapse of stipulated period and, occasioning neither saving grace of circumstances nor saving provision of section 28(9A) therein, erases the proceedings so initiated by the impugned show cause notice. To mull over the correctness of this proposition, we need to retrace our thinking to overhaul of the recovery mechanism by amending [Act 8 of 2011, section 42 effecting amendment to section 28 with effect from 8th April 2011] law. For the first ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....temmed from a coordinate adjudicating authority having deferred to binding precedent. We may not be reticent in appreciating the diligence with which the adjudicating authority mined the data pertaining to appeals before the Tribunal at all eight locations among the thousands awaiting disposal and, from sources undisclosed, obtained the facts pertaining to the dispute merely to seek recourse to deferment instead of decision when convenience should have preferred disposal of the notice itself; after all, direct information about kindred dispute is hardly available readily at hand. Or it may be measure of length that the tax administration would go to keep binding precedent at bay, no matter that it is strung out on hopes and odds. 12. It is not the claim of the adjudicating authority that the very dispute is pending before the Settlement Commission or appeal of the noticee, or any other person, on like matter is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court or that any stay subsists on disposal thereof or that instructions of the Board warrant withholding of closure. There is no suggestion that competent authority under sub-section (9) had ever been approached for 'close-end....