ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. v. MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R.S. Pathak
L.M. Sharma
Judgment Date: 1989-05-01
Court Decision / Holding: The Review Petitions are allowed. The Court recalls the judgment and order dated 20 December 1986, and directs that the cases be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs; the cases are to be re-listed and re-evaluated on merits.
Final Disposition: Review Petitions allowed; judgment recalled; cases to be re-listed for fresh consideration; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others

Respondents

Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.K. Ganguli
• K. Swamy
• P. Parmeshwaran

Counsels for Respondents

• F.S. Nariman
• Anil B. Diwan
• R.K. Lukose
• K.R. Nambir
• A.N. Haksar
• D.N. Mishra
• P.K. Ram

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, i.e., the Revenue, filed review petitions against a judgment and order dated 20 December 1986. The respondents, Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., objected on the ground that the judgment had achieved finality and should not be reopened. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel, found prima facie that the impugned judgment contained inconsistencies with the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited (1984) 1 SCR 347. The issues raised in the petitions were held to be of substantial public importance and warranted reconsideration. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petitions, recalled the judgment and order dated 20 December 1986, and directed that the cases be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits at this stage, emphasizing that the matters would be re-examined on their merits. The decision to recall reflects a cautious approach to ensure consistency with controlling precedent and to address possible errors that could affect the jurisprudence on central excise and related matters, with an aim toward correct application of law in fiscal administration.

Provisions of Law Cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL-JConstitution of India, 1950, Article 137

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Prima facie
substantial public importance (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Revenue petitioners contended that the December 20, 1986 judgment contains inconsistencies with the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited (1984) 1 SCR 347, and that the questions raised are of substantial public importance requiring reconsideration. They urged that the judgment be recalled and the cases listed for fresh consideration on merits, so as to align the decision with binding precedent and correct potential misapplications of controlling law in items pertinent to central excise and related tax matters.

Contentions of Respondents

The Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. urged that the judgment dated 20 December 1986 be treated as final and should not be disturbed. They argued that reviewing the judgment would undermine finality, delay adjudication, and cause prejudice by reopening settled questions. They claimed the petition for review did not present grounds compelling recall and that the merits should be resolved within the existing framework rather than reheating the case.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited	[1984] 1 SCR 347	Mentioned Only	Cited as controlling authority for the principle used to test inconsistency with the court's own law, but not overruled or distinguished in this judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A R # ###### )( ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. _v._ MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. MAY 1, 1989 [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND L.M. SHARMA, J.] _Supreme Court Rules,_ _1966:_ _Order_ _XL-Judgment inconsistent_ _with_ _law_ _on certain items-Review_ _of-Points_ _of substantial public_ _importance raised-Review petitions allowed._ _Constitution_ _of_ _India,_ _1950:_ _Article 137-Judgment-Review_ _of-When permitted._ The petitioners-.revenue filed petitions for review of the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The respondent-manufacturers objected to t.he same on the ground that finality of D the judgment should be maintained and not disturbed lightly. Allowing the Review petitions, this Court, HELD: _Prima facie_ an inconsistency is present in the judgment in respect of certain items when regard is had to the law laid down by this E Court in _Union of India_ v. _Bombay Tyres_ _International Limited,_ [1984] 1 SCR 347. Besides, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance and call for reconsideration. [8180 I Accordingly, the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 are recalled and the cases directed to be listed again for fresh consi- F deration. [8180] ###### .. Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, [1984] 1 SCR 347 relied on. ##### ...,· ' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. G 597 to 601 of1987 . IN C.A. Nos, 3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP No. 10108/80 and C.A.No. 793/84. 817 H A 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R. WITH C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLP No. 36/80, W.P. No. 192/77, SLP No. 4041/81 and C.A. No. 2269/80. ##### \ ·"' A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy and P. Parmeshwaran for the Peti #### _. ## ### _+_ **B** ~~- ~ ##### c _f.S._ Nariman, Anil B. Diwan, R.K. Lukose, K.R. Nambir, A.N. Haksar, D.N. Mishra and P.K. Ram for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by **PATHAK,** CJ. After hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 of which review is sought, should be recalled and the cases be heard again on the merits. It appears to us _prima facie_ that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in the impugned D judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in _Union_ _of India_ v. _Bombay Tyres International Ltd.,_ [1984] I S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are being re-opened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of the points raised in the cases. Objection was taken by the respondent manufacturers to the Review Petitions on the ground that the finality of the judgment E should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opinion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance, and therefore call for reconsideration. D Accordingly, we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judg ment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to,i.; F their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh **consideration. There is no order as to costs.** ~ N.P.V Petitions allowed.