TRANSCAB INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. We do not think that the decision of the Larger Bench in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 34 (Tri. - LB) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Automats (India) requires reconsideration.

(2.) In this connection we may point but that the matter relates to the interpretation of a notification issued by the Board and as the interpretation given by this Tribunal has not been challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court, it is not proper for this Tribunal to attempt re -consideration of the view taken by the Larger Bench. The force of judicial discipline and propriety has been the subject -matter of decisions of the Supreme Court in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) - Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and 2002 (4) SCC 234 - Chandra Prakash and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

(3.) In the light of the above we hold that there is no need for reconsideration of the decision of the Larger Bench in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Automats (India) [2000 (119) E.L.T. 34 (Tri. - LB)]. We, therefore, send back the matter to the regular Bench for being disposed of on merits.