W.P.(C)/5617/2021 of INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Signature Not Verified

$~31*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 01[st]June, 2021

+W.P.(C) 5617/2021

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran,Mr. B.L. Narasimhan, Mr. Yogendra Aldak andMr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR...... Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with

Mr. Ashish Jain, CGSC, Mr. Vinay Yadav,

Mr. Akshay Gadeock, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. SahajGarg for R-1/UOI

Mr. Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel

for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

Per, Justice D.N. PATEL, The CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL).

Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 17504/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 17505/2021 (Exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit aswell as payment of court fee)

For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the present

prevailing situation, the present application is allowed. However, theapplicant is directed to file duly signed and affirmed affidavits within

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 1 of 18

Signature Not Verified

period of one week and the requisite Court fee within period of 72 hoursfrom the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court.

Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5617/2021

1.This petition has been preferred for the following reliefs :

“a)issuethewritofmandamusoranyotherappropriate writ or order or direction in the naturethereof, directing the Respondents to implement the FinalOrder No. 51226-51571 / 2020 dated 02.11.2020 & FinalOrder No.50608 – 51022 / 2021 dated 15.01.2021 passedby the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi in respect of all theconsignments of the repaired goods imported/to beimported by the Petitioner;appropriate writ or order or direction in the naturethereof, directing the Respondents to implement the FinalOrder No. 51226-51571 / 2020 dated 02.11.2020 & FinalOrder No.50608 – 51022 / 2021 dated 15.01.2021 passedby the Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi in respect of all theconsignments of the repaired goods imported/to beimported by the Petitioner;

b) issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriatewrit or order or direction in the nature thereof, directingthe Respondent No. 2 to take necessary actions to enablethe Petitioner to clear the repaired goods, imported/to beimported into India, without payment of IGST, extendingthe benefit of exemption Notification No. 45/2017-Cus.dated 30.06.2017;writ or order or direction in the nature thereof, directingthe Respondent No. 2 to take necessary actions to enablethe Petitioner to clear the repaired goods, imported/to beimported into India, without payment of IGST, extendingthe benefit of exemption Notification No. 45/2017-Cus.dated 30.06.2017;

c) issue such further orders and other reliefs as the natureand circumstances of the case may require.”and circumstances of the case may require.”

2.Petitioner is Public Limited Company and scheduled Airlineoperator engaged in the business of transportation of passengers and goodsby air within and outside India. Before the implementation of Goods andServices Tax Regime, Petitioner was re-importing Aircrafts and spare partssent outside India for repairs and maintenance and was claimingexemptions from levy of BCD, CBD and SAD under various Notifications.On 01.07.2017, Goods and Services Tax Regime was implemented in Indiawhich inter alia provided for levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

(IGST) on inter-state supplies as well as imports. Notification bearingNo. 50/2017-Cus. was issued by Respondent No.1 on 30.06.2017 providinga list of Goods which were exempted from levy of Customs Duty andIGST. Another Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. was issued on the same dateproviding the list of Goods exempted from levy of BCD, IGST andCompensation Cess in case of re-import into India.

3.According to the Petitioner, after implementation of GST, thePetitioner cleared the Goods re-imported into India between July 2017 tilldate by claiming exemptions under the said Notifications. The concernedAuthorities allowed exemptions from levy of BCD but refused to do sowith respect to IGST on the ground that IGST is leviable on fair cost ofrepairs and cost of insurance and freight in terms of Serial No. 2 ofNotification No. 45/2017-Cus. Though the Petitioner did not agree with thesaid stand, however, out of commercial sense, it cleared the Goods onpayment of IGST, albeit under protest.

4.Bills of Entry filed by the Petitioner were challenged before theCommissioner (Appeals). However, vide common orders dated 30.04.2019(for 349 Bills of Entry) and 22.11.2019 (for 415 Bills of Entry), the appealswere rejected and levy of IGST was upheld. Vide order dated 02.11.2020,appeals with respect to 346 Bills of Entry were allowed by the Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as ‘CESTAT’) holding that IGST was not leviable on Goods re-imported into India. In so far as the appeals with respect to 415 Bills ofEntry were concerned, the CESTAT vide its order dated 15.01.2021allowed the appeal holding that IGST was not leviable on the Goods re-imported into India and order of Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

5.Petitioner herein seeks appropriate directions to the Respondents toapply the observations and the findings in the final orders of the CESTATdated 02.11.2020 and 15.01.2021 in respect of all consignments of therepaired Goods imported/to be imported by the Petitioner, to enable thePetitioner to clear the Goods without payment of IGST, thereby extendingthe benefit of exemption Notification dated 30.06.2017 bearing No.45/2017-Cus. (Annexure ‘2’ to the memo of this writ petition).

6.It is submitted by counsel for the Petitioner that as per the provisionsof the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules enacted thereunder, when thegoods are imported, Bills of Entry are to be filed by the Petitioner. TheseBills of Entry are to be verified by the officers of the Respondents andlooking to the documents which are presented by the importer / Petitioner,the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules made thereunder and also tothe Notification issued thereunder, the assessment of the Bill of Entry is tobe made by the Respondents.

7.The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the dispute pertainingto levy of IGST on the repaired Goods re-imported into India has beendecided in favour of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is still being compelled toclear Goods on payment of IGST, resulting in financial losses. Orders ofthe CESTAT were brought to the notice of Respondent No. 2 with arequest to clear the goods without payment of IGST, but no action has beentaken. It is further submitted that it is settled principle of judicialdiscipline that the lower Authorities must comply with the orders passed bythe higher or Appellate Authorities and the Respondents are thus dutybound to give effect to the orders of the CESTAT. There is variation intheassessmentby theRespondentsbecausedifferentofficersare

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 4 of 18

Signature Not Verified

interpreting the Notifications differently, which is impermissible in lawsince the issue stands conclusively decided by the CESTAT in both itsorders.

8.It is contended that time and again, Petitioner is being compelled toapproach the Courts and CESTAT, despite two orders of the CESTAT inits favour. Since November, 2020, Petitioner has filed 541 Bills of Entry onwhich it has paid IGST, though under protest, to the tune of Rs. 116 Croresapproximately, even though the same was not payable. For every Bill ofEntry, Petitioner is having to resort to legal remedies under the CustomsAct viz. before Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, which is sheervictimization, besides blocking the working capital of the Petitionerresulting in financial loss, which has aggravated on account of PandemicCovid-19. Respondents are acting in complete ignorance of the orders ofCESTAT, particularly paragraphs 47 to 50 wherein it is clearly observedthat in the absence of mention of ‘Integrated Tax’ and ‘CompensationCess’ in Column (3) under Serial No. 2 of the exemption Notification, onlythe basic Custom Duty on the fair cost of repair charges, freight andinsurance charges is payable and Integrated Tax and Compensation Cessare wholly exempted. Despite the clear observations and findings ofCESTAT, Respondents are not following the direction and granting therequisite exemptions.

9.Despite the order of CESTAT dated 02.11.2020, Petitioner wasconstrained to approach the CESTAT yet again with respect to 415 Bills ofEntry. Separate appealswere preferred, which were also allowed vide orderdated 15.01.2021 (Annexure ‘4’ to the memo of this writ petition).CESTAT interpreted the same Notification and reiterated its observations

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

made in the earlier order dated 02.11.2020. Both the orders are binding onthe Respondents and there is no reason why the Petitioner should becompelled to approach the Court again and again with respect to each Billof Entry.

10.In the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits thatsuitable directions be given to the Respondents to follow and abide by theorders of the CESTAT dated 02.11.2020 and 15.01.2021 and grantexemptions to the Petitioner for the subsequent Bills of Entry, withoutcompelling the Petitioner to approach the Courts or other Forumsrepeatedly.

11.Counsel appearing for the Respondent, per contra, submits thatgeneral orders cannot be passed by this Court with respect to theassessments for different Bills of Entry filed by the Petitioner. Every Bill ofEntry has to be assessed separately and in case the Petitioner is aggrievedby an assessment, it is not remediless and has the remedy of filing astatutory appeal against the assessment order. From the order of theCommissioner (Appeals), remedy of further appeal before the CESTAT,New Delhi, is also available and it is thus not open to the Petitioner toapproach this Court directly and the writ petition is not maintainable.

12.We have heard learned counsels for the parties and looked into thefacts of the present case.

13.Petitioner is scheduled Airline operator engaged in the business oftransportation of passengers and goods by air. For the said purpose,Petitioner imports aircrafts and it is averred that when the engine / auxiliarypower units or other parts develop defects / problems, they are exported forrepairs and the repaired parts are thereafter re-imported into India. At the

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 6 of 18

Signature Not Verified

time of re-import, Bills of Entry are filed which are assessed to CustomsDuty and Integrated Tax at the applicable rates. The dispute primarily iswith regard to claiming exemption of the Integrated Tax under theExemption Notification No.45/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The primordialgrievance of the Petitioner is that once the dispute pertaining to levy ofIGST of the repaired goods re-imported into India stands decided by twoorders of the CESTAT, there is no reason why the benefit of the ExemptionNotification be not granted to the Petitioner on further re-imports and thePetitioner should not be subjected to the harassment of approaching theCourts and other Forums for the said purpose.

14.We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for thePetitioner. CESTAT has passed two orders in favour of the Petitionerclearly holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the Exemption under theNotification, one with respect to 349 Bills of Entry and the other withrespect to 415 Bills of Entry. Petitioner made representations dated15.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 to Respondent No.2 for implementing theorders passed by CESTAT and to allow the Petitioner to clear the re-imported goods without payment of IGST. However, there has been noresponse from the concerned Respondent. Once the legal issue standsadjudicated between the parties to the lis, we find no plausible or justifiablereason for compelling the Petitioner to approach the CESTAT or this Courtto claim the benefit of the Exemption Notification for subsequenttransactions. In fact, once the illegal action of the Respondents in deprivingthe Petitioner of the benefit of Exemption has been set aside by theCESTAT and the errors of law stand corrected, the action of theRespondents in once again placing wrong interpretation on the

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 7 of 18

Notification is completely unwarranted and certainly harassment to thePetitioner.

15.The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition thatGovernment and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants inCourts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is to transform Governmentinto an Efficient and Responsible litigant. In its 126[th]Report on“Government and Public Sector Undertaking Litigation Policy andStrategies”, the Law Commission expressed the need of having LitigationPolicy to avoid litigation or to reduce it so as to bring down the load on thejudicial system resulting in reduction of expenses on judicial set up.

16.The Ministry of Law and Justice held ‘National Consultation forStrengthening the Judiciary, towards Reducing Pendency and Delays’ on24[th]and 25[th]October, 2009 and one of the agenda was the huge pendencyin courts. The Resolution presented by the then Minister of Law and Justicein the said Consultation acknowledged the initiative taken by theGovernment of India to frame National Litigation Policy (NLP) with aview to ensure that the Central Government acts as responsible litigantand also urged every State Government to evolve similar policies.

17.To implement the said Resolution, Department of Legal Affairs,formulated National Litigation Policy in the year 2010 and launched thesame on 23[rd]June, 2010. Its aim is to transform Government into anEfficientand Responsiblelitigant. This policy was also based on therecognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect therights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of theconduct of Government litigation should never forget this basic principle.

18.Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s concurring opinion in the Hon’ble

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 8 of 18

Supreme Court’s decision in Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India, (1974)3 SCC 554 [Para 25]cited with approval judgment of the Kerala HighCourt inP.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR 1972 Ker 103, whereinthe Kerala High Court observed as under:

“TheState,undertheConstitution,undertakeseconomicactivities in vast and widening public sector it inevitably getsinvolved in disputes with private individuals. But it must beremembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win acase against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; fortheState's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate substantialdefence and never to score technical point or overreach aweaker party to avoid just liability or secure an unfairadvantage, simply because legal devices provide such anopportunity. The State is virtuous litigant and looks withunconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on themerits the case is weak, Government shows willingness tosettle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lessermotivations which move private parties to fight in court.……………”

(Emphasis supplied)

20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Geeta Iron& Brass Works Ltd., (1978) 1 SCC 68 at page 69 [Para 4] observed asunder :-

“………….We like to emphasise that Governments must be madeaccountable by Parliamentary social audit for wasteful litigativeexpenditure inflicted on the community by inaction.…….. Alitigative policy for the State involves settlement of governmentaldisputes with citizens in sense of conciliation rather than in afighting mood. Indeed, it should be directive on the part of theState to empower its law officer to take steps to compose disputesrather than continue them in Court. We are constrained to makethese observations because much of the litigation in which

Governments are involved adds to the case load accumulation inCourts for which there is public criticism. …

(Emphasis supplied)

21.In the above context, it would be useful to refer to passages from thejudgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCIT v. S.R.M.B. DairyFarming (P) Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 239wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Courtgave its imprimatur to the judgement of the Karnataka High Court inCITvs. Ranka & Ranka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 3982 [para 27]as under:

“9. The Bench considered the issuance of the Circular in theconspectus of the National Litigation Policy Document released.The said Policy Document which has been extracted in thejudgment for its reliance has been reproduced hereinunder: (CITvs. Ranka & Ranka, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 3982 para 27)

“Introduction

Whereas at the National Consultation for Strengthening theJudiciary Toward Reducing Pendency and Delays held on 24-10-2009/25-10-2009, the Union Minister for Law and Justice,presentedresolutionswhichwereadoptedbytheentireconference unanimously.

And wherein the said resolution acknowledged the initiativeundertaken by the Government of India to frame the NationalLitigation Policy with view to ensure conduct of responsiblelitigation by the Central Government and urges every StateGovernment to evolve similar policies.

The National Litigation Policy is as follows:The Vision/Mission

1. The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition thatthe Government and its various agencies are the predominantlitigants in courts and Tribunals in the country. Its aim is totransform the Government into an efficient and responsiblelitigant. This policy is also based on the recognition that it is theresponsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens,to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of the conduct

of the Government litigation should never forget this basicprinciple.

“Efficient litigant” means

(i) Focusing on the core issues involved in the litigation andaddressing them squarely.

(ii) Managing and conducting litigation in cohesive, co-ordinated and time-bound manner.

(iii) Ensuring that good cases are won and bad cases are notneedlessly persevered with.

(iv) litigant who is represented by competent and sensitivelegal persons: competent in their skills and sensitive to the factsthat the Government is not, an ordinary litigant and that alitigation does not have to be won at any cost.

“Responsible litigant” means

(i) That litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating.(ii) That false pleas and technical points will not be taken andshall be discouraged.

(iii) Ensuring that the correct facts and all relevant documentswill be placed before the court.

(iv) That nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will

be no attempt to mislead any court or tribunal.

2. The Government must cease to be compulsive litigant. Thephilosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimatedecision has to be discarded. The easy approach, “Let the courtdecide” must be eschewed and condemned.

3. The purpose underlying this Policy is also to reduce theGovernment litigation in courts so that valuable court time wouldbe spent in resolving other pending cases so as to achieve thegoal in the National Legal Mission to reduce the averagependency time from 15 years to 3 years. Litigators on behalf ofthe Government have to keep in mind the principles incorporatedin the National Mission for Judicial Reforms which includesidentifying bottlenecks which the Government and its agenciesmaybeconcernedwithandalsoremovingunnecessaryGovernment cases. Prioritisation in litigation has to be achievedwith particular emphasis on welfare legislation, social reform,

Signature Not Verified

weaker sections and senior citizens and other categoriesrequiring assistance must be given utmost priority.

In respect of filing of appeals in revenue matters it is stated asunder:

(G) Appeals in revenue matters will not be filed:

(a) if the stakes are not high and are less than that amount to befixed by the Revenue Authorities;

(b) if the matter is covered by series of judgments of theTribunal or of the High Court which have held the field andwhich have not been challenged in the Supreme Court;

(c) where the assessee has acted in accordance with long-standing industry practice;

(d) merely because of change of opinion on the part of thejurisdictional officers.

Review of pending cases

(A) All pending cases involving the Government will be reviewed.This due diligence process shall involve drawing upon statisticsof all pending matters which shall be provided for by allGovernment departments (including public sector undertakings).The Office of the Attorney General and the Solicitor Generalshall also be responsible for reviewing all pending cases andfiltering frivolous and vexatious matters from the meritoriousones.

(B) Cases will be grouped and categorised. The practice ofgrouping should be introduced whereby cases should be assigneda particular number of identity according to the subject andstatute involved. In fact, further sub-grouping will also beattempted. To facilitate this process, standard forms must bedevised which lawyers have to fill up at the time of filing ofcases. Panels will be set up to implement categorisation, reviewsuch cases to identify cases which can be withdrawn. Theseinclude cases which are covered by decisions of courts and caseswhich are found without merit withdrawn. This must be done in atime-bound fashion.”

(Emphasis supplied)

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

22.From the conspectus of the judgments above, it is clear that the aimof the Policy is to transform the Government into an efficient andresponsible litigant. “Efficient litigant” means ensuring that good cases arewon and bad cases are not needlessly persevered. Litigation should not beresorted to for the sake of litigating. Government must cease to be acompulsive litigant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been repeatedlyaffirming that the propensity of Government Departments and PublicAuthorities to keep litigating is one of the reasons for docket explosion.Mindful of the said factor and the rising litigation, Government has framedthe National Litigation Policy to ensure that pendency of cases is broughtdown and only meaningful issues are brought before the Court.

23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Co-operative Development

-Corporation Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, DelhiV, 2020 SCCOnLine SC 733, in its Postscript Note 1, observed that certificate fordismissal is obtained from the highest court so that quietus could be putto the matter in the Government Departments.Relevant paras of thejudgement are as under:

4.The Central Government and the State authorities havebeen repeatedly emphasising that they have evolved alitigation policy. Our experience is that it is observed more inbreach. The approach is one of bringing everything to thehighest level beforethisCourt,so that there is noresponsibilityinthedecision-makingprocess–anunfortunate situation which creates unnecessary burden onthe judicial system. This aspect has also been commented

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 13 of 18

upon in judgment of this Court in Union of India v. PirthwiSingh, albeit between the Government and the privateparties, where the question of law had been settled and yetthe appeal was filed only to invite dismissal. The objectappears to be that certificate for dismissal is obtained fromthe highest court so that quietus could be put to the matterintheGovernmentDepartments.Undoubtedly,thisiscomplete wastage of judicial time and in various orders ofthis Court it has been categorized as “certificate cases”, i.e.,the purpose of which is only to obtain this certificate ofdismissal.5.The 126[th]Law Commission of India Report titled‘Government and Public Sector Undertaking LitigationPolicy and Strategies’ debated the Government versusGovernment matters which weighed heavily on the time of theCourts as well as the public exchequer. This was as far backas in 1988. It was only in the year 2010 that the NationalLitigation Policy (for short ‘NLP’) was formulated with theaim of reducing litigation and making the Government anefficient and responsible litigant. Five (5) years later itreportedly saw revision to increase its efficacy, but it hashardly made an impact. In the year 2018, the CentralGovernment gave its approval towards strengthening theresolution of commercial disputes of Central Public SectorEnterprises (for short ‘CPSEs’)/Port Trusts inter se, as wellasbetweenCPSEsandotherGovernmentDepartments/Organisations. The aim was and is to put inplace mechanism within the Government for promoting aspeedy resolution of disputes of this kind, however itexcluded disputes relating to Railways, Income Tax, Customsand Excise Departments. It has now been made applicable toall disputes other than those related to taxation matters. Thiswas pursuant to an order passed in The Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Exemptions) v. National Interest Exchange ofIndia by bench of which one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)was part.”

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

24.Useful it would be to refer to Circular/Instruction dated 20.10.2010issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenueregarding Implementation of “National Litigation Policy” which reads asunder:

The National Litigation Policy formulated by theGovernment of India aims to reduce Governmentlitigation so that the Government ceases to be acompulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policyis to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent inresolving pending cases and in bringing down theaverage pendency time in the Courts. To achieve this,the Government should become an "efficient" and"responsible" litigant.

2. Accordingly the Policy lays down, inter alia,that in Revenue matters appeal shall not be filed if theamount involved is not very high and is less than themonetary limit fixed by the Revenue authorities. It alsostates that appeals shall not be filed if the matter iscovered by series of judgments of the Tribunal and theHigh Courts which have held the field and have not beenchallenged in the Supreme Court.The Policy also laysdown that no appeal shall be filed where the assesseehas acted in accordance with the long standing practiceand also merely because of change of opinion on thepart of the jurisdictional officers.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25.Relevant would it be to take note of another Circular/Instructiondated 24.05.2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department

WP(C) 5617/2021

Signature Not Verified

of Revenue regarding Implementation of National Litigation Policy, which

reads as under:

“TheGovernmenthasformulatedtheNationalLitigation Policy 2010, for conduct of litigation on itsbehalf. The policy declares:“Government must cease to be compulsivelitigant. The philosophy that matters should beleft to the courts for ultimate decision has to bediscarded. The easy approach, 'let the courtdecide', must be eschewed and condemned.””

26.In view of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and theGovernment’s own Policies to reduce litigation, it is imperative that theRespondents keep in mind that if on similar facts or legal issues, decisionshave already been rendered by the competent Courts or Tribunals, theymust be followed by the Respondents in subsequent matters. It is unfair onthe part of the respondents to relegate the citizens unnecessarily intolitigation once the matter is covered by judicial/quasi-judicial order.Relegating party to approach Courts or Tribunals, again and again, forinterpretation of provisions of any Act or Rules or Notifications, whichstand interpreted in earlier judgements is not only victimisation to thelitigant but also wastage of judicial time. Moreover, the judgments whichare not stayed or overruled by the higher Forums are binding on therespondents and ought to be followed wherever applicable in the facts of agiven case.

27.This principle would apply with greater vigour in the present casewhere the Respondents have not preferred an appeal against the earlier twodecisions of the CESTAT. There is no justifiable reason for the

WP(C) 5617/2021

Page 16 of 18

Signature Not Verified

Respondents to have compelled the Petitioner to file the present writpetition and in fact the Respondents should have on their own volitionapplied the judgements of the CESTAT to the subsequent Bills of Entryfiled by the Petitioner.It would be travesty of justice if despite two ordersof CESTAT, each time fresh Bill of Entry comes up for assessment bythe Department, the concerned officer would attempt to give its ownsubjective interpretation to the Exemption Notification.Judgements are notmereornamentsand are meant to be followed in letter and spirit.

27.The argument of the counsel for Respondent No. 2 that for every Billof Entry, Petitioner must prefer an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), if aggrieved by an assessment, is an argument that runs counterto the National Litigation Policy of the Union of India. We disagree withand disapprove of this argument of the learned counsel for RespondentNo.2. If the facts are similar and there is binding judgment in existence, itis bound to be followed by the officers of the Respondents. Even if officersof the Respondents keep changing, decision making process must beconsistent and in accordance with binding judgements rendered bycompetent Courts or Tribunals. Consistency is the virtue of the adjudicatingAuthority.

28.In view of the aforesaid, we hereby direct the concerned RespondentAuthority to decide the representations preferred by the Petitioner, whichare Annexures A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8, appended to the present writpetition, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and GovernmentPolicies and with due deference to the decisions rendered by the CESTAT,New Delhi dated 02.11.2020(AnnexureA-3to the memo of this writpetition) as well as decision rendered by the CESTAT, New Delhi dated

WP(C) 5617/2021

15.01.2021 (Annexure A-4to the memo of this writ petition). Therepresentations shall be disposed as expeditiously as possible andpracticable.

29.With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUNE 01, 2021yg

JYOTI SINGH, J

WP(C) 5617/2021