Page 184 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

574 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Civil Application No. 13171 of 2019. No reply disputing this calculation in ques-
tion has been filed by other side. We do not see any other ground except the un-
clarity of the authority in processing the refund claim. This interdepartmental
lack of clarity can hardly effect the right of the parties particularly when there is
statutory provision permitting the interest on the refund claim, if the sum is not
paid within stipulated time period of 3 months.
9. Resultantly, Respondent No. 2 is directed to revise and modify the
orders dated 19-3-2019, 5-4-2019 and 10-4-2019 also calculate and process statuto-
ry interest as to be paid under Section 27A of the Customs Act and pay to the
petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of present
order. In case of difficulty petitioners shall be at liberty to revive these petitions.
10. With aforesaid direction, present petitions stand disposed of accor-
dingly.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 574 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja, JJ.
TBK INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 232 of 2020, decided on 13-3-2020
1
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Dismissal thereof as premature - Non-
consideration of precedent decisions - Tribunal without considering decisions
of co-ordinate Benches on the issue relating to inclusion of royalty in assessa-
ble value, dismissing appeal as pre-mature on the ground of non-finalization
of assessment as directed by first appellate authority - It is not clear as to
whether these decisions of co-ordinate Benches were brought to notice of Tri-
bunal or not - Since in identical circumstances, co-ordinate Benches had taken
different views, matter is remanded to Tribunal to examine these decisions
and then arrive at conclusion as to whether appeal is pre-mature or not and in
case it is not, then decide issue on merits - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 9, 10 ,11]
Petition disposed of
CASES CITED
Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (357) E.L.T. 856 (Tribunal)
— Referred .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 8, 9, 10]
Commissioner v. Chasys Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (366) E.L.T. 161 (Tribunal) — Referred ............................................................... [Paras 8, 9, 10]
Commissioner v. Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. — 2008 (224) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Referred .............. [Paras 8, 9, 10]
Commissioner v. Prodelin India Pvt. Ltd. — 2006 (202) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) — Referred ........... [Paras 8, 9, 10]
Inspiron Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (357) E.L.T. 801 (Tribunal)
— Referred .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 8, 9, 10]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On Appeal from 2019 (369) E.L.T. 673 (Tribunal)
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  184