CCE, Mumbai v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 2015 (315) ELT 161 (SC)

Central Excise Act, 1944.
Precedent – Judicial discipline – Conflicting decisions by CESTAT Benches – Appropriate Course for the second Bench is to refer the matter to the Larger Bench- Court directed the President to constitute a larger bench of three Members to decide the issue.

There is a conflict of opinion between two Benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

 

         Since two Benches of the same strength of Members have taken two conflicting views, that judicial discipline requires that instead of disagreeing with the view taken by the First Bench, the appropriate course for the second Bench would have been to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. This is the basic requirement of judicial discipline. Since this has not been done, the orders were set aside and remand both the appeals back to the Tribunal and directly the President to constitute a larger bench of three Members to decide the issue.