JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. This appeal has been received in the Registry on 22.2.01. It was listed for hearing on 21.5.01 as the Bench had given date of hearing of the stay application as per procedure. On 24.8.2001 one Ms Karpagapriya, Advocate appeared and submitted that the they had already filed a Writ Miscellaneous petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 4416 of 2001 and the Hon’ble High Court gave an interim stay in the matter. Therefore,the learned DR was directed to call for a report from the Commissioner and the matter was set down for hearing the stay petition today. Shri K. Jayachandra, learned Counsel is not present today in the Court not his junior appeared on behalf of the appellants.
2. Shri G.S. Memon, learned SDR files a letter from the Additional Commissioner (Legal) of the Chennai-II Commissionerate, dated 22.10.2001 which states that the High Court has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available. While disposing of the writ petition, the High Court has issued a direction to CEGAT, Chennai to transfer the appeal to Bangalore Bench of CEGAT for disposal. Copy of the High Court order is filed by the learned SDR. From the order of the high court, it is seen that the appellants have made representation before the Hon’ble High Court that since the CEGAT, madras has already taken view against the petitioners, in spite of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they have an apprehension that they may not get a fair and reasonable opportunity and CEGAT may follow it own order. Therefor,e it is stated that if the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in favour of the petitioner, no Tribunal or Court including the this Court (High Court) cannot go against the judgment of the Supreme Court as the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the Tribunals and Courts. The High Court has accepted the prayer and has noted in para 6 to 8 as under:
6. However, the petitioner expressed apprehension since the Madras Bench of the CEGAT already has taken a view against the petitioner in spite of the Supreme Court decision, the petitioner may not get fair and reasonable opportunity, instead the CEGAT would follow its own orders, if the order of the Supreme Court is in favour of the petitioners, no Tribunal or Court, including this Court, cannot go against the Judgment of the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding all the Tribunals and Courts. But depending upon the facts of each case, the applicability of the Supreme Court could be decided. however, in order to do complete justice and to see that justice not only be done but also seems to have been done, the appeal pending before the Madras Bench of the CEGAT may be transferred to Bangalore Bench for adjudications, so that the petitioner will also without any apprehension as argued by them (sic) the matter.
7. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, a direction is issued to the CEGAT Chennai Bench to (sic) the appeal of the petitioner to Bangalore Bench for disposal. It is for the petitioner to approach the Chennai Bench of CEGAt and get the appeal transferred to Bangalore Bench and get the appeal disposed off.
8. With the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected WMPs are also dismissed. No costs.
3. We observe that this Bench has not expressed any view as the Bench has been awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court. This Bench has not refused to follow judgment of the Supreme Court. Prima facie the appellants have not put the facts in the proper perspective before the Hon’ble High Court and have misrepresented the facts before the Hon’ble High Court. The facts on record are that the appeals pertaining to classification of Ayurvedic products are not being heard and the view already taken in the case of NATURELLE HEALTH PRODUCTS Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1995 ((81) ELT 578 was by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal. Which is referred to in the High Court’s order. This judgment has not been delivered by this Bench. Therefore, the facts have not been properly represented before the High Court by the learned Counsel Shri. K. Jayachandran. In view of the pendency of the appeal in the case of Naturalle Health Products before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the appeals pertaining to classification of Ayurvedic products are not being heard, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel before the High Court that this Bench is refusing to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a not correct. In the facts and circumstances of the case, However. in deference to the High Court’s order, this matter is being transferred to the Bangalore Bench of CEGAT. The Registry is directed to transfer the papers to the CEGAT, Bangalore. Copy of this order shall be furnished to both the Members.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)