Page 222 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

132 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

While numerical superiority is considered to accord hierarchical superiority in
the constitutional Courts, Section 129C of Customs Act, 1962 merely distin-
guishes single member and division Benches. Procedures of constitutional Courts
do distinguish a single judge Bench from a division bench with conferment of
appellate jurisdiction on the latter which chapter of Customs Act, 1962. Thus
there is no difference in status of the two types of benches as to warrant the sub-
mission made by Learned Counsel.
8. The submission of Learned Counsel that the impediment in follow-
ing the decisions of the Tribunal cited by him as favouring the applicant during
the hearing of the appeal could have been overcome by reference to a Larger
Bench would have been acceptable had such a relief been available in law. It
hardly bears repetition that only such relief lies as of right as are enumerated in
the statute. Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Tribunal to uphold,
reject or modify an order impugned before it. Reference to Larger Bench is not
enumerated specifically and interpretation resorted to by judicial bodies, in the
absence of legal enforceability are not reliefs to be claimed as a matter of right.
9. The question that now begs an answer is the validity of the conten-
tion of Learned Counsel that a different finding in favour of appellant would
have been the outcome of consideration of the decisions of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2006-
TIOL-469-HC-KAR-CX = 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.)], of the Hon’ble High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Apex Drugs &
Intermediates Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 834 (A.P.)], of the Hon’ble High Court of Pun-
jab & Haryana in Rama Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh
[2009-TIOL-100-HC-P&H], of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in Commis-
sioner of Central Excise, Ranchi v. Ashok ARC [2006 (193) E.L.T. 399 (Jhar.)] and of
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik v. Jain
Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. [2010 (256) E.L.T. 523 (Bom.)].
10. It is but obvious that judicial discipline binds the Tribunal and its
benches. Undoubtedly, the lead decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
In Re : Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. must be followed but to submit that the
order sought to be subject to rectification in this proceeding had not done so em-
anates from a less than diligent reading of that judgment. The Hon’ble High
Court did not sanction the refund claimed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit
Rules, 2004 but has approved the setting aside of the order rejecting the claim for
refund on the ground that it was an insufficient disposal and that it was incum-
bent upon the proper officer to consider sanction under the appropriate empow-
erment if Rule 5 did not entitle the claimant. The judgment has not accorded
sanctity to the claim of the assessee therein. The context of the relevant portion of
that judgment.
‘all claims of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit should not be rejected
for merely being beyond the scope of Rule 5 but needs scrutiny on merit.’
is not amenable to claim for refund in each and every application.
11. The applicant sought refund of accumulated credit that remained
unutilised at the time of closure. Each refund claim needs to be tested on the facts
leading to the claim. In the claim of the appellant, credit accumulated because of
failure to add sufficient value through manufacture and appellant is, as pointed

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  222