Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies Etc. Etc.

· . . it' : .... " 1 .

. -COMMNR. ·aF· c·ENTRAL. ·. EXCIS~, BANGALORE .

.. . · - ... ·: .,· . : .. . . . . .. . ·. .. .. . .·. v. •

SRIKUMAR AGENC1ES ETC .. ETC.

· ·.,(Civil Appear No: 4872-48.92 2ooa of 2000) ·.

. [OR. ARIJIT .P A,Sf!. VA 1, P. SAT~ASIVAM AND

AFTA·a· AtAM, JJ.j . •.

·· . Administration of Justice:

Disposal of cases - Held - By clubbing the· cases together and without analyzing special features of each case, disposal of appeals by mere: reference to decisions and in the o manner done by CEGATwas not proper-Courts should not

place reliance on decisions Without discussing as_ to how factua/ ·situ·ation of the case in him~ · fits in with that of the ·decision on which reliance is placed .- Precedent.

The instant appeals filed by Revenue, were listed before the three· Judge Bench for consideration of the question: "whether the ·pintir,g. on the packag~ is m·er~ly incidental or primary".

During the hearing of the appeals,·it was pointed out that the c ·ustotns, Excise and .'Gold (Control). Appellate Tribunal disposed of several a·ppeats merely by relying on the · decisions . and without detailed analysis· of the factual position involved.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Courts should -not place reliance on dec.ision·s without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Gircumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of differenc·~ between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on ·a decision is not proper . .[Para 4 and 5] [723-E; 724-E]

London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horlon 1951 AC 737 p.761; Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. 1970 (2) AllER 294 and Herrington v. British Railways Board 1972 (2) WLR 537 ~ referred to.

1.2. In the instant matters, since the factual position' has not been analysed in detail, by clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. The CEGAT also does not appear to have_ dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case*. J. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases 'y individually and the articles involved. In the

circumstances, the impugned judgment in each ·case is set aside and the matter is remitted to 'CESTAT' to be· dealt with by the appropriate Bench. [Para 6] [725-B-0]

I. T. C. Ltd. v . .Collector of Central Excise, Madras JT 1998. (8) SC 527, referred to.

--t CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

4872-4892 of 2000 .

. From the final Common Order No. 3008-3028/1999 dated 25.11.1999 of. the Custom~. Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal Nos. E/1561, E/.1038, E/787, E/997 of 1999, E/2940-2945, E/1252-1253, E/54-57 and E/44-48 of 1998.

G.E. Vaharivati, S.G.; T.A. Khan, Oevadatt Kamat, Rahul Kaushik,'S.N: Terda1,·B. Krishna Prasad, V. Lakshmi Kumaran, t Alol< Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, M:P. Devanath, Rana Mukherjee, · ·Siddharth-Gautam, Goodwilllndeevar, Ravinder Narain, Sonu

Bliatnagat, 'Ajay Aggrawal, Sudha Malia and.Rajan . Narain for the appearing parties. '

· · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' --r · .. OR. ARIJit PASAYAT, J. 1.'These appeals were placed before a three-Judge Bench because of reference made by a Division Bench with the following order:

"The point involved in this batch of appeals is . . · whether the printing on the package is merely incidental o · . or primary. On this point we fin.d that there are two streams

· of judgments of this Court. The'refore, keeping in view the ... conflict -of opinion, on the point involved in Rollatrainers

Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India. & Ors. ( 1994 Suppl. (3) -4 SCC .. 293), Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Paper 'i Print & products Co. (1997 (1 0) SCC 564) and · Metagraphs ·Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, . Bombay ( 1997 ( 1) sec 262) we deem it appropriate that I these cases be placed for hearing before a larger Bench.

Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice tor . appropriate . orders."

2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General pointed out that the Customs, Exci~e and Gold (Control) Appellate TribiJnal, _Chennai (in short 'CEGA T') disposed of several appeals without detailed analysis -of the factual position involved. It merely referred to some judgments and submissions of learned t counsel for the assessees who ·are present respondents to hold that the assessees are entitled to relief. The conclusions are practically non-reasoned and abrupt conclusions were ·arrived y

at to hold that printing on media was not merely incidental to its primary use but in fact clearly show the' nature of goods contained therein. It is pointed out that five categories were involved. ln·the case·ofrespondents -Srikumar agencie.s the ·e article involved was Printed Gay Matter and Printed Agarbathi, in the case of M/s Faxwell Printers the article involved was Printed Gay Wrappers, in the case of M!s Raj hans Enterprises the article involv~d was Printed Labels, in the case of Sree Vijay Industries, it was Printed Agarbathi Labels and in the case of Regency Printers, it was Printed Labels. The articles were contextually different. It was also submitted that without detailed anaylsis of the factual position mere reliance on the decisions was not the proper way to dispose of the appeals. It is also pointed out that the view expressed by CEGAT even on. facts was contrary to the ratio laid down by' this Court in I. T. C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras ( JT 1998 (8) sc 527) .

....,

3. In response, learned counsel for the respondents-assessees submitted that the CEGAT is the last finding authority. From its· varied experience having dealt wfth large number of cases. even by visual inspection of the materials !t was in a position to record a conclusion. lt·is also submitted that the factual scenario is not different in these cases vis-a-vis those assessees whose cases were the subject matter of the decisions which have been referred to by CEGAT.

. I 4. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without p discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact sitl!ation of the d~~ision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither. to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the ·statute and that too taken out .....

of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are·not·to-be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and 'provisions of a· statute, it 'may become necessary for judge·s t6 emb.ark into lengthy discussions but the dis~·ussion is m.eari~ to ·e-xplain a~d not tb define. Judges interp·ret statutes, ttiey do nol interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes;· the.if· words. are riot to be interpreted as statutes.· In Lopdoh Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p ~761), Lord Mac.Dermot observed: · I

"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely .by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willesj J as though they were part of an Act of-Parliament and· applying the rules of interpretation appropr~ate thereto: This is not to.detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge."

In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) •I

. . . .

Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech .... .is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition It will require qualification in new y circumstances:" Megany, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, ·construe even a reserved judgment. of Russell L.J . . as if it .were an· Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v BrtishRailways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said:

"There i~. always peri_ I in treating the wo~ds of . a. speec~ or ,......, judgment. as though they are words· in': . . ~ . legislative ..

. .• enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular -case."· l 5. Circumstantial ~lexibility , one additional or different fact may make a world _ot_difference between qo!'lclusions in two cases. Disposal of ca~es by blindly placing reliance on a -\-' decis.ion ., is not proper. . · . .

The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:

"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because . even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, a·

in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as .said by Cordozo) by matching the -r colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide

therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." C· *** *** ***

"Precedent should be followed only so far · as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 'f

6. Since the factual position has not been analysed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The CEGAT also does not aP.pear to have dealt with the relevanc;:e and applicability of fTC's case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor ...-.4 General. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases

individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment in each case and remit the matter to CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( in short 'CESTAT') to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench. In view of th~ aforesaid order · there is no need to answer the reference made.

7. Since the matters are·pending since long, we request -y the CESTAT to d·lspose offt1e appeals as early as· possible pre.ferably by the·end of February, 2009:

.. · . . ; . . .

. 8._ Ttle appeals are accordingly d.isposed of. .

R.P . . Apf)eal disposed of .

. CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION :Civil Appeal Nos. 333-334. of 2001.

From the final Order Nos. 226 & 227 of 2000 dated 10.02.2000 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal Nos. f?/331/99 & E/1703/99.

• .J • Comm~r. of Central. Excise, Bangalore ... Appellant v.

M/s FAXWELL Printers, Bangalore ... Respondents y The· Judgment of the Co.urt was delivered by QR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. 1. Challenge in these ·appeals is to .th~ judg111ent of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate. 1\ Tribunal, South .Zonal Bench· at Madras (in short 'CEGA In ·these cases the CEGAT followed the order passed in the cas~ of ·Srikumar Agencies. who was one of the respon~ents· in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000. By our 1-separ¥il:te judgment toda·y in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000, we have ... set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the matter to · it ... to b~ dealt with afresh. The decision in the said - case . shall apply . . .. _to the facts of the present case.

: · 2 .. ,._

The ~ appeals will be heard afresh by . the appropriate bench ofCEGATwhich is presently known as.customs, Excise & Service' Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT').

IMPRESSION INDIA l TO.

Y 3. Since th~ matter is pending for long, we request the

CEST AT to dispose of the appeals as early as possible preferably by the end of February, 2009.

4. The appeals are allowed.

R.P . Appeal allowed.