Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Customs vs V R L Logistics Ltd....Opponent(S) on 11 April, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.Y. Kogje
O/TAXAP/246/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 246 of 2015
With
TAX APPEAL NO. 247 of 2015
TO
TAX APPEAL NO. 250 of 2015
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS....Appellant(s)
Versus
V R L LOGISTICS LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ OZA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 11/04/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These appeals are field by the Revenue, in which, while admitting the appeals, by an order dated 16.04.2015, Division Bench had framed following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in referring the appeals for decision of Larger Bench by incorrect reading of the decisions in the case of CC New Delhi Vs. Sameer Gehlot reported in 263 ELT 129 [Tri. Del] and in the case of King Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 01:32:29 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/246/2015 ORDER Rotors & Air Charter Pvt. Ltd., reported in 269 ELT 323 (Tri.
Mum.)?
(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order No. 72-88/2014 dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Tribunal is oppose to provisions of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, and liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court?
(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles of law of precedent by not following latest ruling on the issue to decide the appeal on hand and thereby declining to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and proposing to refer case to Larger Bench for its decision?
(d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order passed by the Tribunal can be said to be passed in accordance with law?
2. Though multiple questions have been framed, the central issue involves the correctness or the authority of the Tribunal to make a reference to a larger Bench. Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal was confronted with conflicting decisions of two benches of the Tribunal on an identical question of law arising in the said group of tax appeals. The New Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had taken a view that the benefit of notification No. 21/2002 was available to the assessee whereas another Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai had taken opposite view. It was on this basis the Tribunal referred the issue to the Larger Bench making following observations:
Page 2 of 3HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 01:32:29 IST 2016 O/TAXAP/246/2015 ORDER "2. On perusal of the judgement of Tribunal in the case of CC New Delhi Vs. Sameer Gehlot (Supra) and in the case of King Rotors & Air Charter Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) we are convinced that the both the views are contradictory to each other. As the contradictory order passed by benches comprise of same number of Members i.e. Division Bench, We are unable to come conclusion as to which judgement should be followed as we find the issue involved is the same."
3. We do not see any error in the approach adopted by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal recorded that the two Benches had given diagonally opposite decisions, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in making a reference. Even if the department were of the opinion that one of the judgements could be distinguished on facts, the same would not give rise to a substantial question of law. Being a forum discharging judicial functions, the Tribunal was bound by the law of precedence. If two different benches of co-ordinate strength had given deferring opinions, the Tribunal had to refer the dispute to the Larger Bench. All the questions of law are, therefore, answered against the Revenue. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) Jyoti Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Apr 13 01:32:29 IST 2016