Passing of reasoned order

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1403

Case: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE v/s SRIKUMAR AGENCIES

Citation: 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C)

Issue:- Whether Tribunal can dispose off appeals by mere reference to certain decisions and by clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the foremost facts of each case in detail?

Brief Facts:- The Tribunal had disposed of several appeals without detailed analysis of the factual position involved. The Tribunal did not analyze the special features of each case and held that assesses were entitled to relief. Hence, Revenue filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal.

Since there were divergent views taken by the Division Benches, matter was placed before the three-Judge Bench.

Appellant’s Contention:- Revenue contended that facts of each case were not dealt with in detail. Mere reference was made to some judgments and to submissions of the respondent-assessee. The conclusions were practically non-reasoned and abrupt conclusions were arrived at to hold that prining 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. The articles in case of respondents were different from each other.It was also submitted that the view expressed by CEGAT even on facts wascontrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [JT 1998 (8) SC 527].

Respondent’s Contention:- Respondent contended that the Tribunal is the last finding authority. From its varied experience having dealt with large number of cases, even by visual inspection of the materials it was in a position to record a conclusion. It was 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 the Tribunal.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Supreme Court held that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision 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 perspective. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. The Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes and their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

Reliance was placed on the observations made by Lord Mac Dermot in London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 at p. 761]. Reliance was also placed on observations made in Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [1970 (2) All ER 294] and inHerrington v. British Railways Board [1972 (2) WLR 537].

It was held that circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

The words of Lord Denning were also referred to which were that in the matter of applying standards that 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, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the 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.”

It was held that since the factual position has not been analyzed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The Tribunal also does not appear to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC’s case on which strong reliance has been placed by Revenue. The Tribunal 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 view of the aforesaid facts there was no need to answer the reference made. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal.

Decision:- Appeals disposed off accordingly.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1403

Post a Comment

Query