HIGH COURT RULING 2016-TIOL-2337-HC-KOL-CX Kusum Products Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: September 20, 2016) CX - Petitioner is a manufacturer of vanaspati oil and claim CENVAT credit - Authorities have refused to give the Cenvat credit on the plea that the regulations have subsequently been changed Petitioner submitting that in Rasoi Ltd. it has been held that, a manufacturer of vanaspati oil is entitled to invoke the vested right of such manufacturer in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the notification as it then stood - Viewed from such perspective, the impugned order as well as the show cause notices cannot stand in the manner and form as they stand today Impugned order as well as SCNs are set aside: High Court [para 6, 7] 2016-TIOL-2336-HC-HP-CX CCE Vs Auro Weaving Mills (Dated: September 27, 2016) CX - Once the assessee(s) are held entitled to the rebate, then in terms of Circular No.687 dated 03.01.2003, there was no discretion available with the sanctioning authority to give refund of duty paid on goods exported, save and except, in cash and the same could not have been paid by way of credit in the Cenvat Credit Account - Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the department and the department cannot be permitted to urge that the circulars issued by the Board are not binding on it - circular issued by the Board cannot be assailed by the petitioner herein no merits in the petitions filed by CCE, hence dismissed: High Court [para 14, 15, 18] 2016-TIOL-2332-HC-KOL-CX CCE Vs Assam Tubes Ltd (Dated: September 22, 2016) CX - CCE has filed a petition against an order passed by the Settlement Commission in terms of s.32f of the CEA, 1944. Held: Petitioner has canvassed the point of alleged failure of the Settlement Commission to appreciate facts - A writ court is not a First Appellate Court where the facts are to be re-apprised to find out whether another view can be taken on the facts established - The Settlement Commission has considered the relevant facts and has arrived at a finding as recorded in the impugned order - Such finding has not been demonstrated to be perverse - Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pass the impugned order has also not been questioned - High Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 6, 7] 2016-TIOL-2327-HC-JHARKHAND-CX CCE Vs Castings India Inc (Dated: August 22, 2016) CX - De-coiling, straightening and cutting TMT coil into TMT Bars/Rods - activity does not amount to manufacture as the ultimate final product is same - even if the end product is falling in a different tariff entry, it does not mean that there is manufacturing - Merely because there is value addition for end product TMT bars/rods and, therefore, the process applied upon TMT coil should tantamount to manufacture is not accepted - Revenue appeals dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5, 6] 2016-TIOL-2313-HC-MUM-CX JBM Auto Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: September 26, 2016) CX - Findings that the disclosures are honest and yet there is suppression and misdeclaration of facts cannot be reconciled Remark made by Settlement Commission in final order deleted - petitioner will not derive any benefit in the form of refund of duty,
interest and penalty already paid under the order of the Settlement Commission : High Court [para 7] 2016-TIOL-2311-HC-MUM-CX CCE Vs Narendra Plastic Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 26, 2016) CX - Revenue raises the contention of non maintainability of the appeal and that too before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Held: legal position is enunciated in the Larger Bench judgment and order in case of Gaurav Pharma Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2541-CESTAT-DEL-LB that appeal against an order of provisional release passed u/s 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable before the the first appellate authority no substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration of this court same is kept open for deciding in appropriate case appeal disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5] 2016-TIOL-2310-HC-P&H-CX CCE Vs National Fertilizers Ltd (Dated: September 27, 2016) CX - Section 11AA of the CEA, 1944 provides that if an assessee fails to pay duty within three months from the date of determination, he is liable to pay interest thereafter - Explanation 1 and 2 thereof will not be applicable in the present case as the duty determined has not been reduced or increased by the appellate authority - Rather, it is a case where the Tribunal finding merit in the contention raised by the respondent remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination of the amount of duty payable, which necessarily means that the impugned order had lost its significance and it is only the order passed after remand, which would be applicable and enforceable - Once there is no delay in deposit of duty by the respondent after passing of the order passed by the adjudicating authority in remand proceedings, in view of Section 11AA of the Act, the demand of interest is not justifiable No substantial question of law Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [para 8, 11] 2016-TIOL-2309-HC-MUM-CX Colour Flair Powder Coating Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE (Dated: September 26, 2016) CX - Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits Appeal restored but assessee cannot have the luxury of litigation without complying with the order of the Tribunal directing pre-deposit of Rs.6 lakhs as the assessee has never challenged the order passed on restoration application nor the condition incorporated therein two weeks time given: High Court [para 3, 4] 2016-TIOL-2304-HC-AP-CX Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs ACC (Dated: August 1, 2016) Central Excise - import of Manganese ore - provisionally assessed under Section 18(1) of the CA, 1962 - Claimed exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE which exempts ores from payment of Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) - SCN issued as to why a demand should not be made towards differential duty as the material imported was Manganese concentrate and not ore - OIO passed after considering the objections, which was sent by Speed Post and received on 25-12-2012 - appellants claimed to have received the same on 12-12-2013 when they received a mail from Clearing House Agent - On appeal, Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal as time barred - on further
appeal at CESTAT, the tribunal dismissed the appeal holding the Commissioner (A) has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days and the service of copy through speed post is a valid mode of service under Section 153 of the CA, 1962 - Hence, the present appeal before High Court. Question of law for consideration is - Whether the service of a copy of the order by Speed Post, would constitute valid service under Section 153(a) of the CA, 1962, or not. Held: The High Court has considered every one of the decisions relied on by the appellant - it observed that the Orissa High Court alone has gone into the question as to what the words Registered Post appearing in Section 153 (a) of the CA, 1962 would connote - Orissa High Court referred to Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and also pointed out that Speed Post service was introduced, by way of an amendment to the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 - Taking into account the Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and Rule 66B of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 it concluded that the Speed Post is nothing but another method of registering an article through postal department under Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - Hence, as this is the only decision in all the ones referred which has laid down a ratio decidendi, the High Court agreed to the view expressed by Orissa High Court in JAY BALAJI JYOTI STEELS LTD. v. CESTAT, KOLKATA - as pointed by Orissa High Court, a person who seeks to send an article by Speed Post, does the same thing as a person who seeks to register an article does - transmission is fast track in Speed Post and a tracking system is provided - Other than that there is no distinction - the expression registered post appearing in Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, have to be construed as including within its purview, the method of registering an article, to be taken by speed post - Hence, the appeal is dismissed - (Para 20, 21) 2016-TIOL-2250-HC-SHILLONG-CX Mawthlliang Wood Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: August 24, 2016) CX - Petitioner-company engaged in manufacture of Veneer questioning the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by Commissioner, wherein their application for 'Fixation of Special Rate of the Actual Value Addition' in terms of Notfn 20/2007-CE as amended was rejected on the ground that same was barred by time-limit - Petitioner had given out all reasons in a forthright manner wherefor application could not be filed in office of Commissioner by 30.09.2015 - In any case, application was indeed filed in office of Commissioner on 01.10.2015 - So far supporting documents are concerned, mere nonfiling of the same with application could not have been taken as fatal to cause nor the application could have been declined on that ground alone, particularly when such documents/records were also presented on 16.10.2015 i.e., within 15 days of moving the application and well within period of 30 days, the extent to which Commissioner has been authorized to condone the delay and to consider the matter on merits - Impugned order set aside and application is restored for consideration of Commissioner for disposal by way of a reasoned and speaking order on merits: HC 2016-TIOL-2247-HC-MAD-CX CCE Vs Thyssenkrupp Jbm Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 17, 2016) Writ jurisdiction - Factual findings of Settlement Commission - Invocation of writ - Scope - Held, High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 cannot act as second
appellate court to interfere with Settlement Commission's factual findings absent perversity 2016-TIOL-2231-HC-KOL-CX Berger Paints India Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: September 15, 2015) CX - Special Audit - Section 14AA of the CEA, 1944 - Commissioner has not specified the materials on the basis of which he has formed the opinion that the petitioner has availed of duty credit or utilised cenvat credit beyond the normal limits having regards to the nature and quantity of finished goods manufactured and cleared - foundational basis for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 14AA of the said Act has not been stated in the impugned order. Impugned order is unreasoned - Where a decision by a statutory authority entails a civil consequences and where the section does not expressly debar the application of the principles of natural justice, then a right of hearing has to be read into such provision of the statute it does not appear from the materials made available on record that the authorities have afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Impugned Order set aside: High Court [para 6, 8, 9, 10] 2016-TIOL-2230-HC-P&H-CX CCE Vs Shivalik Global Ltd (Dated: September 20, 2016) CX - Revenue appeal against order of CESTAT - Issue regarding determination of the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment in view of provisions of section 35G read with section 35L of the CEA, 1944, appeal is not maintainable before High Court - liberty granted to the appellant to avail of appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum - appeal dismissed: High Court [para 3] 2016-TIOL-2229-HC-AP-CX CCE & C Vs Crafts Interiors Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 16, 2015) Central Excise - Penalty - Whether CESTAT has power to reduce mandatory penalty - Held: CESTAT is empowered to reduce penalty specified under section 11AC when the revised tax demand in all probability is likely to workout to a meager amount upon redetermination of the duty on remand. The order of the adjudicating authority was challenged before the CESTAT, and after detailed analysis of the facts the CESTAT came to the conclusion that certain factual aspects are required to be reworked out and thereby, a revised demand is required to be made determining the duty liability while remanding back the case to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the transactions, which are actually liable for tax. The Tribunal on appreciation of the facts directed to limit the penalty not to exceed 10%. Now the substantial question of law is that whether the CESTAT has power to reduce the mandatory penalty equivalent to duty imposed under Section 11 AC. It is manifestly clear that the 3rd proviso to the amended Section 11AC provides discretion to the Tribunal with respect to the penalty and in fact Section 11AC came to be substituted by Finance Act, 2011 with entirely new provisions where different rates of penalties have been prescribed. In the present case, the tax demanded turned out to be a small amount of Rs.36,949/-, Rs.45,101/- and Rs.4,41,386/- in appeal. What all the Tribunal has done is given a direction to the adjudicating authority in view of the facts of the case to take into consideration and limit the penalty not to exceed 10% of the tax demand. In such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity and further it may also be noticed the very question raised in the present case would become academic in view of the different rates of penalties prescribed in section 11AC
giving latitude to the CESTAT. (Para 7, 8) 2016-TIOL-2228-HC-MAD-CX Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Officer (Dated: August 18, 2016) Central Excise - Refund of amount akin to pre-deposit made by assessee pursuant to interim order to entertain appeal - Has to be refunded along with interest upon assessee succeeding in the appeal - Revenue's insistence for submission of GAR challan to establish payment of amount equivalent to pre-deposit, held is unnecessary in view of production of tax paid voucher with challan status culled out from the official website of the department. (Para 10, 11, 14) 2016-TIOL-2227-HC-ALL-CX Prema Construction Vs Asst.CCE & ST (Dated: August 24, 2016) Writ of Mandamus - Writ seeking enforcement of contractual obligations to recover certain money - Permissibility - Nothing on record to suggest that statutory rights involved under the contract to grant writ relief - Thus, in absence of statutory right, High Court cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus to enforce contractual obligation or provide remedy of recovery of money arising out of breach of contract. (Para 9) 2016-TIOL-2225-HC-MUM-CX CCE & C Vs Hemani Intermediates Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 14, 2016) CX - Appeals, though admitted on substantial questions of law, considering monetary impact, which in opinion of Revenue/Government is meagre, leave is sought to withdraw these Appeals and unconditionally - Appeals allowed to be wiyhdrawn - Questions of law and which are termed as substantial are open for being raised in an appropriate case: HC 2016-TIOL-2222-HC-KAR-CX Concept Hydro Pneumatic Pvt Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: August 24, 2016) Dismissal of Appeal - Condonation of delay in preferring appeal by 117 days - Scope - Condonation of delay though is required to be sufficiently explained, if the Court finds that there is substantial merit in the case and rights of the parties have not substantially altered, delay can condoned by imposing costs - Substantial merit in appellant's case - Delay condonation apparently is not going to result in prejudice to the Revenue but is going to result in grave injustice to the appellant - In the circumstances, CESTAT dismissing application to condone delay, unjustified - Delay condoned on imposing cost. It is by now well settled that the condonation of delay though is required to be sufficiently explained but at the same time, if the Court finds that there is substantial case to be considered in the appeal, the Court may also examine as to whether the delay could be condoned by imposing suitable costs or not. It is true that, the delay may operate as bar in pursuing the proceedings but, to what extent the discretion should be exercised would vary from facts to facts. Financial inability cannot be a ground which need not be considered at the time of condonation of delay. On the contrary, financial inability can be one of the valid grounds for accepting the contention that the appellant was prevented by sufficient reasons in not preferring the appeal. It may be that in a given case, Court may decline to exercise discretion for condoning the delay, if, during the period of delay, the rights of the parties are substantially altered and/or irreversible situation is created but we do not find any of the requirements are satisfied in the present case. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to
have exercised the discretion for condonation of delay. Further, declining the exercise of discretion for condonation of delay may result into grave injustice to the appellant and appellant would be deprived of the case to be considered on merits, more particularly, when no prejudice is going to be cause to the respondent-department, since on the demand, the interest if ultimately is maintained, it is to follow. Under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Delay deserves to be condoned and the Tribunal should be directed to decide the appeal on merits. (Para 6-8) 2016-TIOL-2221-HC-DEL-CX Pr Chemicals Vs UoI (Dated: August 23, 2016) CX - Rebate - Export of Gutkha - Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011 - Petitioner submits that ban on use of plastic sachet which was brought in force on 02.07.2011 by substituting the definition "carry bag" could not have defeated the rebate claim on account of admitted exports that occurred between 07.06.2011 and 01.07.2011. Held: Central Government itself in almost identical facts and powers seems to have (in P.R.Chemicals's case) taken the view that (a) notifications is not retrospective and (b) that it cannot be applied for consignments that were cleared prior to 02.07.2011 - As far as the textual interpretation to "export" goes, the revisional authority in this case construed the meaning of the term based on its common grammatical connotation rather than on analysis of other parts of the statute i.e. the Custom Act - Section 51 of the Customs Act completely answers the issue at hand - as held by the apex court in Asian Food Industries - 2006-TIOL-147-SC-CUS, Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not say that until and unless shipment crosses the international boarder, the notification imposing prohibition shall be attracted - petitioners entitled to relief - impugned order cannot be sustained - Writ petition allowed - Rebate applications to be processed expeditiously preferably within four months: High Court [para 4, 5, 6] 2016-TIOL-2220-HC-MAD-CX Prabha Industries Vs ACCE (Dated: August 29, 2016) Writ - Maintainability - Ground of territorial jurisdiction - Original adjudication order and the appellate order were passed by the Appellate Commissioner Cochin - None of the orders issued were within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai High Court - Appeal against said order before Chennai High Court not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. (Para 5) 2016-TIOL-2219-HC-MAD-CX Bhoruka Steel Ltd Vs CC (Dated: August 17, 2016) Central Excise - Delay condonation - Appeal before Appellate Authority was filed one day beyond the condonable limitation period of 30 days - Appeal held is barred by limitation and appeal was rightly rejected because Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay beyond statutory period of 30 days - However, High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances can condone appeal delay. The Act does not confer power on the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days. In fact, there are decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that this Court should not embark upon such exercise when outer time limit has been fixed in a statute. Though this has been the rule, there have been certain exceptions where this Court has exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is manifestly clear in this case that the Order-in-Original which was passed on 10.11.2004, is yet to be given effect to and it has not attained finality, in spite of lapse of nearly one decade. The Writ Petition has been pending before High Court from the year 2005 and eleven long years has lapsed and nothing has happened. Therefore, this is a good and
sufficient reason for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and condone the delay, with a direction to the first respondent to hear the appeal on merits. 2016-TIOL-2203-HC-MAD-CX Arun Smelters Ltd Vs CESTAT (Dated: July 19, 2016) Central Excise - Compounded levy - Arrears of duty demand for the period under compounded levy - Whether can be paid from CENVAT Credit on inputs received on after 01.04.2000 - As per the judgement of Supreme Court, compounded levy scheme as a comprehensive scheme and the general provisions of the Act and the Rules, are excluded, and further the assessee opting for the scheme, is bound by the terms of that particular scheme - Payment from CENVAT Credit not allowed. 2016-TIOL-2202-HC-CHD-CX CCE Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd (Dated: August 17, 2016) CX - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Refund of CENVAT - Goods manufactured were not leviable to any tax as exported out of the country, however, refund claimed of input tax credit - Though the adjudicating authority declined the claim of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority accepted it - Revenue appeal rejected by Tribunal, hence appeal to High Court. Held: Tribunal referred to the decisions in Repro India Ltd. - 2007-TIOL- 795-HC-MUM-CX and Drish Shoes Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-350-HC-HP-CX (affirmed by Supreme Court) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Department - Once the issue involved in the present appeal has already been gone into by the Supreme Court and judgments of Bombay High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court have been upheld granting relief to the assessee, Court does not find any substantial question of law arising in the present appeal - appeal dismissed: High Court [para 6] 2016-TIOL-2198-HC-UKHAND-CX Haridwar Iron & Ispat Rolling Mills Ltd Vs CCE & ST (Dated: July 14, 2016) CX - Petition filed seeking directions to quash impugned order passed by Tribunal - Revenue placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Court in case of Rishab Velveleen Ltd. to show that remedy of appeal under section 35-G of CEA, 1944 is available to petitioner and there is no scope for entertaining writ petition against the order passed by Tribunal - After arguing petition at some length, petitioner seeks to withdraw writ petition with liberty to file statutory appeal under section 35-G of CEA, 1944 - Same is disposed of as withdrawn: HC 2016-TIOL-2192-HC-P&H-CX CCE Vs Emsons Organics Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 9, 2016) CX - Tribunal holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - Revenue in appeal. Held: Assessee cannot be said to be at fault at the material time in view of circular of the Board and earlier order of Tribunal in favour of the assessee - as the assessee was not at fault, extended period of limitation was not available - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4] 2016-TIOL-2191-HC-P&H-CX PR CCE Vs Nhk Spring India Ltd (Dated: August 9, 2016)
CX - Valuation - Circular dated 30.06.2000 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs providing that any amount of concession on sales tax retained by the assessee is not required to be added in the assessable value and an earlier order was also passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee - issue decided in favour of Revenue by Supreme Court in cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2014-TIOL-74-SC-CX & Super Synotex (India) Ltd. 2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX but the ground of limitation was decided in favour of assessee - in view the aforesaid facts, the assessee cannot be said to be at fault - extended period of limitation not available - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4, 5] 2016-TIOL-2177-HC-KOL-CX LGW Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: September 15, 2016) CX - Goods manufactured by SAIL were exported - Petitioner had applied for rebate and which was disallowed - Petitioner's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), however, revisional application filed by the department was allowed on the ground that the respondent had allegedly committed procedural lapses - appeal to High Court. Held: Revisional authority has not found that, the petitioner did not export Central Excise Duty Paid goods out of India, or that the relevant ARE forms do not bear the appropriate customs endorsements - Alleged procedural lapses for the consignment under consideration have also not been alluded to or identified - Order set aside and appeal allowed - parties will act in accordance with the directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals): High Court [para 6, 7] 2016-TIOL-2176-HC-P&H-CX CCE Vs Sarita Handa Export Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 17, 2016) CX - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Refund of CENVAT -Goods manufactured were not leviable to any tax as exported out of the country, however, refund claimed of input tax credit - Though the adjudicating authority declined the claim of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority accepted it - Revenue appeal rejected by Tribunal, hence appeal to High Court. Held: Tribunal referred to the decisions in Repro India Ltd. - 2007-TIOL-795-HC-MUM- CX and Drish Shoes Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-350-HC-HP-CX (affirmed by Supreme Court) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Department - Once the issue involved in the present appeal has already been gone into by the Supreme Court and judgments of Bombay High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court have been upheld granting relief to the assessee, Court does not find any substantial question of law arising in the present appeal - appeal dismissed: High Court [ para 6] 2016-TIOL-2175-HC-P&H-CX Avdesh Tracks Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: August 10, 2016 ) CX - Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills's case ( 2015-TIOL-283-SC- CX ) has held the provisions of Rules 96ZO, ZP and ZQ to be ultra vires with reference to levy of interest and penalty, therefore, interest and penalty levied on the appellant under the aforesaid provisions, cannot be sustained Appeal allowed: High Court [para 10] 2016-TIOL-2155-HC-MAD-CX SRF Ltd Vs CESTAT (Dated: August 30, 2016) Central Excise - Jurisdiction of High Court - Since the issue relates to whether the appellant is entitled for exemption under an exemption notification, High Court has no jurisdiction under Sec 35G to entertain the appeal, notwithstanding the appeal being
pending for 10 years 2016-TIOL-2145-HC-MAD-CX CCE & ST Vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd (Dated: August 23, 2016) Central Excise - Valuation - Interunit transfers - Assessment finalized by the Assistant Commissioner to adopt value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 and to include duty paid on raw materials also in cost - When the assessment order is not challenged, assessee cannot indirectly challenge the quantification by the Superintendent as it is not an adjudicatory function - Superintendent directed to quantify demand based on Supreme Court decision in Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd case. The respondent/ assessee has accepted that the cost of construction declared by them under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 can be applied and prayed for further proceeding, which exactly, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, has done, while passing the order-in-original - The order-in-original had attained finality and therefore by following the decision in CCE vs Flock India Pvt. Ltd. 2002-TIOL-208-SC-CX, the Commissioner of Central Excise has, passed an order in Appeal stating that there cannot be any indirect challenge to the order-in-original. (para 30) The direction that has been issued to the Superintendent is only to quantify the differential duty, if any, due to the inclusion duty element on the raw material and finalise RTI2 assessment in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. In the light of the directions issued by the adjudicating authority, computation of differential duty on the basis of the cost of denatured ethyl alcohol cannot be said to be an adjudicatory function, to be discharged by the Superintendent and therefore, an opportunity of hearing is not required. The directions of the Tribunal, to the Jurisdictional Range officer to provide an opportunity of hearing, is not in accordance with the scheme of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, and hence the directions are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. (para 32, 34) In Appeal proceedings, Dai Ichi Karkaria's case was not placed before the appellate authority. But, before the Tribunal, submissions have been made by the respondent on the basis of Dai Ichi Karkaria's case and taking note of the same, directions have been issued to the jurisdictional range officer to consider the said decision, and the submission of the respondent. Had it been placed before the Commissioner Appeals, it would have been considered and appropriate orders would have been passed, though the assessment order had reached finality. Directions to compute the differential duty, in terms of the said rule and Dai Ichi Karkaria would have been issued. Needless to state that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is binding on all courts/tribunals/authorities, with reference to matters, pending on file. (para 37) The range jurisdictional officer is bound to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and compute the value of excisable goods under assessment. While doing so, the jurisdictional officer is under no obligation in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He is required to only compute the value and the differential duty, as per the rule and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. (para 38)