PADMA RAGHAVAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.S. Ramasamy, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) This is a classical case, where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coonoor Division, Mettupalayam, has failed to follow the order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 133 of 2001, dated 21-6-2001. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union India v. Kamlakshi Finanace Corporation Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) pointed out as to what is judicial discipline while giving effect to orders of higher appellate authorities, which are binding on the lower appellate authorities. In Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (supra), the case was somewhat similar to the case on hand, where the Assistant Collector was of the opinion that if he accepts the assessee's contention, the Department would lose revenue and would also have no remedy to rectify the order. One such action done by the Assistant Collector in his overzealous attempt to get over an order of the appellate authority was called in question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the revenue has to unreservedly follow the appellate authorities order unless operation there of has been suspended by a competent Court and mere fact of appeal having been filed against the order is no ground for not following it. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the said judgment.

(3.) What has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision has been done by the Assistant Commissioner in his overzealous attempt to get over the order passed by the appellate authority. The issue arose in the following manner :