Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical) - (1.) THE Commissioner (Appeal) has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner that the applicant is liable to pay duty non-levied of Rs 4,30,22,276.18, and imposing on it an equal amount of penalty, on the ground that the technical grade pesticides manufactured by it are required to be classified under heading 29.42 of the Central Excise tariff.
(2.) In his order, the Deputy Commissioner has held that as the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pesticides Mfrs and Formulators Association of Indian 2000 (115) ELT 324, he did not feel bound by it. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the stay of a judgement does not result in that judgement being extinguished or wiped out; he cites in support the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Koduru Venkata Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer and R.D.O., Kovali 1987 (67) STC 424.
(3.) IN this judgement, the High Court said, "We are of the view that when a judgement of the High Court is the subject matter of an appeal and the said judgement is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that that judgement cannot be executed or implemented. But so long as the Full Bench judgement stands, the dicta laid down therein are binding on all Courts including the single Judges and Division Benches of this Court.";