Per Justice K. Sreedharan :

These appeals have been posted before a Larger Bench of three Members on account of the conflicting decisions rendered by Benches of two Members in cases filed by same party, namely, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. In the first case reported in 1997 (90) ELT 502, this Tribunal took the view that Steel Development Fund (SDF), Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund (EGEAF) and Joint Plant Committee Cess/charges (JPC) cannot be included in the assessable value of different categories of iron and steel manufactured by various manufacturers of steel in India. When the same issue came up again, Eastern Bench Calcutta of this Tribunal as per the decision reported in 1998 (24) RLT 394 took a contrary view and held that the above mentioned charges are part and parcel of assessable value of the produce and the department was entitled to levy excise duty on that. These conflicting decisions of coordinate Benches necessitated reference of these appeals to the Larger Bench.

2. Before proceeding further in the matter, we express our disapproval of the manner in which the Eastern Bench of two Members took a view contrary to that expressed by a coordinate Bench in 1997 (90) ELT 502. The Eastern Bench ignored the need for continuity, certainty and predictability of the decisions of this Tribunal. Judicial inconsistency will go to shake public confidence in the administration of justice. This does not mean that a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction is not having the freedom to doubt the correctness of an earlier decision. When subsequent events bring to light the error that might have been committed in delivering the earlier decision, the matter should be placed before the President for constituting a Larger Bench for resolving the points in conflict. Instead of resorting to such a course, a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction is not to render its decision contrary to the view expressed in the earlier decision. Judicial propriety also requires a Bench not to take a contrary view on an identical question arising between the same party. The Eastern Bench, to say the least, was not acting in a proper manner while taking a view contrary to that taken in the earlier decision even when request was made to it for referring the matter to a Larger Bench.

3. As per Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Central Government is entitled to issue orders providing for regulating production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity for their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. In exercise of this power, Central Govt. issued Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956. Clause 15 of that order authorised the Controller to fix maximum prices at which any iron or steel may be sold. Clause 17B empowered the Central Govt, to set up committees for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. The Committee so constituted was to carry out the functions specified in the notification issued by the Central Govt. in that behalf. Invoking the provisions contained in clause 17B of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, notification dated 7.4.1971 was issued setting up Joint Plant Committee and Steel Priority Committee. Functions of the committee were enumerated in that notification. This notification was amended by notification dated 27th December, 1978. Clause 9A was added to the earlier notification dated 7.4.1971. As per that, the committees were empowered to add an element to the ex-works price determined under sub-clause (8) for constituting a fund for modernisation, research and development with the object of ensuring the production of iron and steel in the desired categories and grades by the main steel plants. This newly added clause was introduced to collect certain amounts from the customers who purchase iron or steel for constituting a separate fund. This amount to be collected was to be added to the ex-works price determined under sub-clause (8) of the earlier noti