Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. We have heard learned advocate, Ms.Amrita Thakore, who has taken us through various decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. She has emphasised that the judicial discipline also would require to give effect to the order of the higher appellate authorities and not to once again initiate the actions of recovering the very refund claim, which has been given to the petitioner after a long drawn battle.

5. Learned advocate, Ms.Amrita Thakore has lamented the action of the respondent No.2, which, according to her, is in a clear and flagrant violation of the settled principles of law. According to her, there has to be a hierarchical discipline to be observed even by the quasi judicial authority. It is impermissible for any officer below in the rank to overreach the process of law. In case of quasi judicial authorities also, the decision of their C/SCA/3320/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021 appellate authorities shall need to be essentially binding upon those who are juniors. Not only the principle of judicial discipline has been completely given a go by, but the officer concerned has also violated the settled judicial principles and therefore, according to her, not only the Court needs to allow these petitions, but also saddle the other side with a heavy cost for making it difficult for the petitioners. She has also urged that it is a settled principles that after once, the finality is attained of decision of the authorities, there has to be a regiment governing judicial discipline whereby again, any subsequent event cannot upset that discipline and the order which has been passed bearing in mind the law which was prevalent at the relevant time.

11.6 Thus, the emphasis on the part of the Apex Court is to observe the judicial discipline and the appellate authorities to insist on the judicial discipline to be observed for giving effect of the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding upon the adjudicating authorities.

12. In case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Kothari Products Ltd, reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.), the Demand was held by the Tribunal as barred under the law of limitation and it applied principle of res judicata as the issue was covered in earlier proceedings.

21. Allowing the appeal, by the officer concerned on 19.12.2018 allowed the refund claim pertaining to the ECSHSEC, this had also been challenged before the CESTAT by the petitioners only on a limited ground of rejection of a part of a refund claim, however, the department had preferred no appeal and accepted the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, when the petitioner had preferred the refund claim C/SCA/3320/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021 on 22.01.2019, after ascertaining the status of the order dated 19.12.2018 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the same had been allowed on the ground that the department had accepted the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, the claim had been cleared by the pre-audit of the department. This has also been reflected in its refund order dated 01.04.2020 and the petitioner had also received back the said amount. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice once again of raising the very issue when the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has attained finality without any challenge by the department, which deserves indulgence. It is a judicial discipline which demands following the mandate of superior authority, even when it is a quasi judicial body as such discipline is an intigral part of this well laid down principle and deserves scrupulous observance by all concerned. No one is permitted to obliterate this well defined boundaries, even in a zeal to earn more revenue or profit the interest of the State as done C/SCA/3320/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021 by the respondent No.2. He also would not be permitted to rely upon the subsequent decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India (supra) which has been delivered on 19.12.2018, much after the process of grant of refund also was over. The decision, which was held the field being of SRD Nutrients Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Guwahati (supra) was followed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The decision of the Apex Court would bind one and all, but, it cannot avail ground to wreck any issue which has attained finality. More particularly, when it does not give any mandate or authorisation or direction to the concerned officer to question and challenge the refund order which has already been passed and the issues which are no longer subsisting. When the officer concerned has no direction to raise any claim of refund retrospectively (which could never be). The subsequent direction of the Apex Court cannot furnish a reason to raise demand retrospectively in the issue which is C/SCA/3320/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/10/2021 concluded.