TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (rupees two crore) upon the appellant under the provisions of rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the provisions of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2.As per the facts on record a dispute arose between the appellant and its jurisdictional Central Excise authorities as regards the availability of exemption Notfn. No. 64/95, dt. 16-3-1995 as amended by Notfn. No. 116/95-C.E., dt. 13-11-1995, to the wagons being manufactured by the appellant under the scheme introduced by the Railways known as "Own Your Wagon Scheme". The said dispute travelled up to Tribunal and the appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of vide Order No. A-98/Cal/2001, dt. 31-1-2001 [2001 (131) E.L.T. 681 (T)]. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant documents before the adjudicating authority. However, the adjudicating authority, instead of verifying the documents and to adjust the final demand against the Modvat credit, as specifically directed by the Tribunal, rejected their plea on the ground that the issue of Modvat was outside the scope of the show cause notice issued to the appellants and as such should not have been dealt with by the Tribunal. Accordingly he returned the modvatable documents to the appellants. The appellants' grievance is that the Tribunal's order was binding upon the Commissioner and the remand was a limited and restricted one for verification of the documentary evidences of the duty paid on the inputs. It was incumbent and obligatory on the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt and utilisation of the inputs in the appellants' factory. As rightly argued by the ld. Adv. this was a limited remand for the purposes of verification of documentary evidences and the issue of availability or non-availability of Modvat credit was not left open to the Commissioner for fresh decision. Inspite of that the Commissioner has observed as under :- 23. So far as the question of allowing Modvat credit is concerned, I find that this was not an issue at all in the subject matter of the Show Cause Notice. The adjudicating authority or the appellate authority should not have allowed to enlarge the scope and ambit of the said Show Cause Notice by inviting reference to availability or otherwise of Modvat credit. However, the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal over which the high court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a Tribunal can do so all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case the Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Courts binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer (emphasis provided)." The Hon'ble Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the Commissioner, in itself is an objectionable phrase. 9.As such we are of the view that the grievance of the appellant is not unjustified. The Commissioner has rendered the judgment in a manner which is against the judicial propriety and decoram. We do not feel happy to make the above observations, but are constrained to say so in the premise and background of the case. 10.Coming to the merits of the case the appellants' claim that the Modvat credit available to them is to the tune of Rs. 1,42,92,095.50 (rupees one crore forty two lakh ninty two thousand ninty five and fifty paise). We hold that the said credit is to be allowed to the appellant and the ....