PEARL ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consistency in rendering judgments or passing interim orders is an integral element of legal propriety and judicial discipline. Judicial discipline is of the basis of integrity of the Institution. Even a stray aberration in such foundational values, will affect the image of the Institution as fair and impartial. Inconsistent orders passed by a Judicial Officer in the same fact situation will undermine and shake the faith of the people in the judicial system and rule of law and leave an imprint in the mind of the litigant that he has been discriminated. The whole purpose of the protector-Institution is to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness. Hence, such Institutions shall not give rise to even a remotest feeling or situation of being in-consistent in their orders lest they should be accused of being partial and unfair.

(2.) The above guiding principles having served as background to the instant case, we may briefly refer to the fact situation. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary for us to go in detail to the merits of the case. The first petitioner was a partnership firm till December, 2009, whose unit at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh was engaged as a job worker for Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Petitioner was also a registered service provider paying service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. The Central Excise has taken the view that the activities thus carried out by the petitioner amounted to manufacture, thus attracting excise duty. The petitioners contested the same on merits and also claimed exemption from payment of excise duty on the ground that the unit is situated within the notified area and thus entitled to exemption from payment of central excise duty. Both the contentions have been rejected and second respondent imposed excise duty on the petitioner as per order dated 31.5.2010. An appeal was filed under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, as per Annexure P-15. Annexure P-16, application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was also filed therewith. The petition was posted on 7.9.2011. It is the case of the petitioners and it appears also so from the impugned order that an adjournment had been sought by the junior Advocate. However, by a detailed order, the same was rejected and the Tribunal directed the deposit of an amount of eight crores out of the demand for duty to the tune of around fifteen crores and penalty for an equal amount. On the next day of the impugned order i.e. 8.9.2011, identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal, at the interlocutory stage under Section 35F of the Act in the case of M/S Vasantham Enterprises. Incidentally, it is also worth noting that one of the Members of the Tribunal which passed Annexure P-18, order dated 7.9.2011, was also Member in the Bench, hearing the application under Section 35F, filed by M/S Vasantham Enterprises. The Tribunal by order dated 22.9.2011, dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and the stay petition was allowed un-conditionally. It was a case where duty around rupees thirty seven crores was imposed. The petitioner moved Annexure P-20, application seeking recall of order dated 7.9.2011. That application was rejected, as per Annexure P-23, order, wherein it has been stated that it was the discretion of the Tribunal to pass interim orders depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was also observed that it was not a fit case for exercise of power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure), Rules, 1982. Those two orders, Annexure P-18 and P-23 are under challenge alongwith the dependent orders, in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Heard, Sh. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Rajiv Jiwan, Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents.