Page 186 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

576 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

The Learned Counsel tendered compilation of decisions wherein the Tribunal
has entertained the appeals on merits against the order passed in the identical
circumstances. These are Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Chasys Automotive
Components Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (366) E.L.T. 161 (Tri. - Mum.)]; Caprihans India Pvt.Ltd.
v. Commissioner of Customs [2017 (357) E.L.T. 856 (Tri. - Mum.)]; Mondelez India
Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) [2017 (357) E.L.T. 813 (Tri. -
Mum.)]; Inspiron Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.(A), JNCH, Nhava Sheva [2017 (357)
E.L.T. 801 (Tri.-Mum.)]; Kirloskar Abara Pumps Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
(Import) [2017 (346) E.L.T. 148 (Tri. - Mum.)]; Commissioner of Customs v. Ferodo
India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)]; WEP Peripherals Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Customs [2008 (224) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.)]; Commissioner of Customs v. Prodelin India (P)
Limited [2006 (202) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)]; and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [1964
(5) S.C.R. 64]. He submitted that even the appeal filed against the order passed
by the Tribunal on merits has been dismissed by the Apex Court in one of the
cases. He submitted that if such a view taken in the impugned order is permitted
to be taken by the Tribunal, it will unseat the consistent view taken by the Tribu-
nal where the Tribunal has entertained appeals arising from GATT Valuation
Cell via the Commissioner (Appeals).
9. In the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any
reference to the other orders passed by the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2010 (252)
E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)] has stressed upon the Tribunal the need to give deference to
the decisions of its co-ordinate benches. It is not discernible whether the Petition-
er has drawn attention of the Tribunal to the orders passed in the above men-
tioned cases and whether the Tribunal had the benefit of examining these deci-
sions. Since the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as premature and that prima
facie we find that in identical circumstances the Tribunal has taken a different
view, we are inclined to entertain this petition, more particularly in the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Mercedes India Ltd. However, before concluding
finally on the issue, we find that it will be appropriate to let the Tribunal examine
the above cited decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches and then take an
informed decision whether the appeal is premature or otherwise.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 10
May 2019 is quashed and set aside The Appeal No. C/995/2012 is restored to the
file of the Tribunal. The Petitioner will place the compilation of the above deci-
sions and any other decisions for consideration of the Tribunal on the question of
maintainability of the appeal. The Tribunal after considering these decisions will
take a decision regarding maintainability of the appeal. Needless to state that if
the Tribunal holds that the appeal is maintainable, the Tribunal shall decide the
appeal on its own merits.
11. We make it clear that we have set aside the impugned order and
remanded the proceedings only on the above ground and we have not concluded
finally on the legal and factual aspects which are kept open.
12. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  186