TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h is also in Taloja; goods were moved to M/s. SCF, in terms of Rule 57F (4) and Notification No. 214/86, using 249 Job Work Challans issued under stamp and seal of jurisdictional authorities. Export Obligation was fulfilled; Remittances received; DGFT redeemed all 9 Licenses and Customs cancelled the Bonds executed. Revenue issued an SCN dated 30.9.2003 for Rs. 1.22 Cr, alleging that the appellants misrepresented before DFGT in obtaining SION; imported excess 980.275 MTs PCE and diverted goods for job work to sister concern. Appellant paid Rs. 54.16 Lakhs during investigation; the SCN issued was not adjudicated till 2009, Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court with a Writ Petition No. 2511/ 2009. Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated 25.1.2010, disposed of the Petition, as Revenue gave undertaking to decide the SCN in a time bound period. Commissioner Export adjudicated SCN; though he did not uphold allegation of excess of import, held that condition of notification Custom Notification 30/97 was violated on ground that job work was without permission and as such goods are to be treated as diverted. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 1, 22, 84,534 and equal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter after the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the UOI Vs Mangali Civil Appeal. He further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. 2010 (262) ELT 6 (S.C.) has held that Co-ordinate bench decision must be followed. A similar decision was taken by the Tribunal in the case of SRF LTD. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai - I 2019 (367) ELT 457. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has decided the impugned issue in the case of ADITYA BIRLA NOVO LTD. 2021 378 ELT 42 (Kar.); Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd that decision rendered later on has a retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood; several Civil Appeals on the issues of Jurisdiction of DRI are tagged in Supreme Court with Union of India v. Mangali Impex Ltd. - 2020 (371) E.L.T. A226 (S.C.); Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Customs Appeal No. 75015 of 2015), followed the Mangali Judgment and held DRI has no jurisdiction to issue SCN; Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Suncity Strips....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clear that the appellants have raised the issue of jurisdiction of DRI to issue show-cause notices and have relied upon the case of Mangali Impex (supra). However, on going through the impugned order, we find that the Bench has not gone into the issue of jurisdiction of DRI to issue the impugned show-cause notice. No findings were also given on the applicability of the decision in the case of Mangali Impex (supra). We also find that it does not require a long-drawn argument or reasoning to see that the Bench has not considered the submissions of the appellants as far as the case of M/s Mangali Impex (supra). To that extent, the mistake appears to be evidently apparent on record. 8. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra) held that: 37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of case law is that a judge does not make law; he merely declares it; and the overruling of a previous decision is a declaration that the supposed rule never was law. Hence any intermediate transactions made on the strength of the supposed rule are governed by the law established in the overruling decision. The overruling is retrospective, except as regards matters that are res judicata or accounts that have been settled in the meantime". (emphasis supplied) 44. It is no doubt true that after a historic decision in Golak Nath v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 762, this Court has accepted the doctrine of 'prospective overruling'. It is based on the philosophy: "The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration". It may, however, be stated that this is an exception to the general rule of the doctrine of precedent. 45. Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality. 46. In S. Nagaraj &Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC, Sahai, J. stated; "Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor tec....