Page 220 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

130 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 130 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (T)
SHREE AMBE MATA INDUSTRIES
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., AURANGABAD
Misc. Order No. M/91024/2017-WZB, dated 19-5-2017 in Application
No. E/ROM-92219/2017 in Appeal No. E/1752/2011
Appellate Tribunal - Hierarchy - Bench System - Section 129C of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 merely distinguishes single member and Division Benches but
not provides for difference in status of the two types of Benches so as to accord
hierarchical superiority to Division Bench unlike constitutional Courts which
distinguish a single judge Bench from a Division Bench with conferment of
appellate jurisdiction on the latter - Single member Bench not bound to follow
judgment rendered by Division Bench. [para 7]
Appellate Tribunal’s order - Precedents - Section 129B of Customs Act,
1962 empowers the Tribunal to uphold, reject or modify an order impugned
before it - Reference to Larger Bench not enumerated specifically and interpre-
tation resorted to by judicial bodies, in the absence of legal enforceability are
not reliefs to be claimed as a matter of right. [para 8]
Rectification of mistake - Refund of credit accumulated due to closure
of factory denied - Credit having accumulated because of failure of appellant
to add sufficient value through manufacture and appellant being an end user
to that extent excluded from entitlement for refund - Grant of refund would,
therefore, be tantamount to acknowledging incorrect application of rate of du-
ty on the manufacturer preceding the applicant in the value added chain - Var-
ious decisions relied on by appellant alleged to be not considered but outcome
not varied even after considering such decisions - Error not being apparent on
face of Tribunal’s order, not rectifiable - Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act,
1944. [paras 11, 12]
Application rejected
CASES CITED
Bangalore Cables P. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (347) E.L.T. 100 (Tribunal) — Referred .......... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Apex Drugs and Intermediates Ltd. — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 834 (A.P.)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Ashok ARC — 2006 (193) E.L.T. 399 (Jhar.) — Referred ........................................ [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. — 2010 (256) E.L.T. 523 (Bom.) — Referred ... [Para 9]
Computer Graphics Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 41185-41186/2016
by CESTAT, Chennai — Referred .................................................................................................. [Para 2]
Rama Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2009-TIOL-100-HC-P&H — Referred ............................ [Para 9]
Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. — 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.)
— Referred .................................................................................................................................. [Paras 9, 10]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the
Appellant.
Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR), for the
Respondent.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  220