Page 175 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. v. C.C.E., COCHIN 709

ion in a subsequent decision of Supreme Court - Such a change of opinion of
law cannot be taken as a ‘mistake apparent on the face of the record’ which
could be rectified by invoking Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Fur-
ther, such material cannot be used for unsettling the settled position attained
through disposal of appeal and cannot be utilized for reopening a concluded
decision, which had attained finality between parties inter se. [para 18]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Assistant Commissioner v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
— 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................. [Para 11]
Commissioner v. A.S.C.U. Ltd. — 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Relied on .................................... [Para 13]
Commissioner v. Bharat Bone Mill — 2007 (210) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) — Relied on ................................. [Para 16]
Commissioner v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries — 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Paras 2, 3]
Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) — Relied on ........ [Para 17]
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (202) E.L.T. 177 (Tribunal-LB) — Referred ......... [Para 4]
Income Tax Officer v. Asok Textiles Ltd. — (1961) SCR 236 — Relied on ............................... [Paras 10, 16]
Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
— (1988) 174 ITR 579 — Relied on ................................................................................................ [Para 15]
M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka — (2003) 7 SCC 517 — Relied on .............................................. [Para 16]
Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009 (248) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ................ [Paras 14, 15]
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (163) E.L.T. 113 (Tribunal)
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Paras 2, 3]
Smriti Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Settlement Commission —
2005 (191) E.L.T. 128 (Cal.) — Relied on ...................................................................................... [Para 16]
Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax — 1999 (237) ITR 834 (Guj.) — Referred ............... [Para 11]
T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers — (1971) 82 ITR 50 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................... [Para 10]
Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors — 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
— Referred ................................................................................................................................... [Paras 3, 4]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri George Johnson and V.S. Manoj,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SC, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment per : Abdul Rehim, J.]. - Challenge in this Central Excise Ap-
peal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is against an order of
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
Bangalore, in E/608/2007-DB, dated 26-7-2018. The appellant herein is the appel-
lant and the respondent herein is the respondent before the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal had initially decided the appeal in question through
Annexure-A order passed on 9th September, 2008 [2009 (237) E.L.T. 363 (Tri.-
Bang.)]. Challenge raised in the appeal was against assessment of central excise
duty and penalty. The Tribunal found that, the appellant herein had paid the
duty before issuance of the show cause notice and therefore the penalty imposed
cannot be sustained. For arriving at such a conclusion the Tribunal had placed
reliance upon a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of C.Ex.
v. Sreekrishna Pipe Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)] and also on the orders
passed by the Tribunal itself in similar cases. The Tribunal also observed that, the
Apex Court in the case in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Visa-
khapatnam [2004 (163) E.L.T. 113 (Tri.-Bang.)] had set aside the penalty imposed
under Section 11AC of the Act on similar grounds.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  175