G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President

1. The common issue involved in these two appeals is whether "Lauryl alcohol" imported by the appellants, was classifiable under heading No. 15.08/13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as claimed by the appellants or under Heading No. 29.01/45(1) of the Schedule as claimed by the Revenue. Both the lower authorities found against the appellants. The claims of the appellants on the basis of the classification claimed by them for refund of the excess customs duty recovered were also dismissed by the lower authorities.

2. We have heard Shri S.R. Tamhane, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri C.V. Durghayya, D.R., for the respondent.

3. Shri Tahrnane, pointed out that the issue in these appeals stood concluded in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Hico Products Ltd. (the present appellants themselves) reported in MANU/CE/0155/1984 : 1984 (18) E.L.T. 645. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Roussel Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Order No. C. 654/1985, dated 13-9-1985 and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Dailchi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Hico Products Ltd. and 4 Others (Order Nos. 591-597/87-C dated 13-8-1987). Shri Durghayya conceded that the issue stood concluded by the above decisions but said that he would like to reiterate the submissions for the Revenue as urged in the previous appeals heard by the Tribunal.

4. As stated by Shri Tamhane and Shri Durghayya, the issue in these two appeals stands already concluded by the decisions referred to earlier. It was held by the Tribunal that Lauryl alcohol, among other fatty alcohols, was appropriately classifiable under Heading No. 15.08/13 of the Schedule and was eligible for exemption from payment of additional duty of customs in terms of Customs Notification No. 48/79, dated 1-3-1979. Following the aforesaid decisions, we allow the present appeals with consequential relief to the appellants which shall be granted to them within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

5. Before parting with the case, we must refer to what, in our opinion, is a disturbing trend which has been noticed from time to time and which cannot but be deprecated. This is exemplified in the present cases. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 7-8-1985/5-2-1986 records as follows :-

"As this Custom House has yet to decide on the acceptance of Appellate decisions or CEGAT Orders regarding assessment of fatty alcohols of any purity under Chapter 15, the ratio of these decisions cannot be applied. The assessment already made under Chapter 29 is treated as in order. The claims are not tenable and no refund is due."

The Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 2-3-1987 has also chosen to ignore the CEGAT decisions and has confirmed the Assistant Collector's order.

6. In the above context, we must state that unless the orders of the CEGAT are stayed, or reversed, by a superior forum, the decisions cannot be ignored or brushed aside by quasi-judicial authorities in the department. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, has noted that the department had gone to the Supreme Court for stay of the Tribunal's order in the case of Roussel Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. (supra). He does not, however, record that a stay had been granted by the Supreme Court. We must note also that the departmental representative did not state before us either that the Supreme Court had stayed the order of this Tribunal or that the order had been reversed.

7. That quasi-judicial authorities in the department cannot ignore or brush aside this Tribunal's decisions is a self evident proposition. And, it is not as if the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals), in the present cases, have even attempted to distinguish the facts of the present cases from those of the cases decided by the Tribunal and come to a finding that those decisions are not applic