“10. The question as to how the Tribunal should proceed in the face of conflicting decisions of High Courts has been considered in M/s. Atma Steels P. Ltd. and others v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in l984 (17) E.L.T. 331 wherein the Larger Bench consisting of five Members held that, in view of its All India jurisdiction and peculiar features, the Tribunal cannot be held bound to the view of any one of the High Courts, but has the judicial freedom, to consider the conflicting views, reflected by different High Courts, and adopt the one considered more appropriate to the facts of a given case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also indicated that this should be so, irrespective of the fact whether one particular assessee was within the jurisdiction of a specified High Court or the original adjudicating authority was located there. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) was brought to the notice of the Larger Bench, but, was not adverted to sufficiently in the course of discussion. In the East India Commercial Co. case, one of the questions for consideration was whether the interpretation given by the Calcutta High Court to Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 would be binding on authorities functioning within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court held that “it is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. ........We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest Court in the State is binding on authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence.........”. This decision has been followed by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Godavaridevi Saraf reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 624).
