It is axiomatic that decisions of this Tribunal are binding on Revenue
IN a recent case before the CESTAT, the Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL and M/s GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi - 2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL had not correctly comprehended the scope and trajectory of provisions of the Export of Service Rules, 2005!
The Tribunal was not amused. In his aristocratic language, the President observed,
1. The invitation by Revenue to ignore the law declared by the Larger Bench in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra) and reiterated in GAP International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi (supra) is unacceptable.
2. It is axiomatic that decisions of this Tribunal are binding on Revenue.
3. Jurisprudential stability and coherence in law is the foundation for a stable investment climate which is critical to economic stability of the Republic.
4. Once the Tribunal pronounces a verdict after consideration of the relevant legal environment, the executive branch and an adjudicator at a lower level in the hierarchy is bound by such verdict, subject only to remedies within the judicial branch or appropriate and constitutionally permitted legislative curatives.
Isn't it also axiomatic that the decisions of a Division Bench of the Tribunal are binding on another Bench? Quite often, especially in recent times, we find Tribunal Benches showing scant respect for decisions of other Benches and passing orders against decided judgements.
We will bring you this order of the Tribunal on Monday.