1989 JTR(SC) 284
1989 41 ELT 703 ; 1989 2 JT 332 ; 1989 1 Scale 1592 ; 1989 3 SCC 238 ; 1989 SCC(Tax) 393 ; 1989 2 SCR 817 ; 1989 2 UJ 175
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S.Pathak, CJI., L.M.Sharma, J.
Assistant Collector Of Central Excise
Versus
Madras Rubber Factory
Case No. : 597 , 601 of 1987
Date of Decision : 5/1/89
Advocates Appeared: Divan Anil B. : Ganguli A.K. : Haksar A.N. : Lukose R.K. : Mishra D.N. : Nambiar K.R. : Nariman F.S. : Ram P.K. : Rao P.P. : Swamy K.
Act
Referred
:CENTRAL EXCISE ACT : S.4(4)(d), S.4(1)(a)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.137
Respect of certain items an inconsistency - Call for reconsideration - Learned counsel for parties briefly Court are satisfied that judgment and order of which review is sought should be recalled and cases be heard again on merits - It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in impugned judgment when regard is hard to law laid down by this court – Held, Inasmuch as cases are being re-opened Court refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on merits of points raised in cases - Objection was taken by respondent manufacturers to review petitions on ground that finality of judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly - In Court opinion points raised by petitioners are of substantial public importance and therefore call for reconsideration – Petitions are allowed
Respect of certain items an inconsistency - Call for reconsideration - Learned counsel for parties briefly Court are satisfied that judgment and order of which review is sought should be recalled and cases be heard again on merits - It appears to us prima facie that in respect of certain items an inconsistency is present in impugned judgment when regard is hard to law laid down by this court – Held, Inasmuch as cases are being re-opened Court refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on merits of points raised in cases - Objection was taken by respondent manufacturers to review petitions on ground that finality of judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly - In Court opinion points raised by petitioners are of substantial public importance and therefore call for reconsideration – Petitions are allowed
A.K.GANGULY, A.N.HAKSAR, Anil B.Divan, D.N.Mishra, F.S.NARIMAN, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.SWAMY, P.K.RAM KUMAR, P.P.Rao, R.K.LUKOSE
Judgment
R.S. PATHAK, CJI.
(1) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20/12/1986 [Asstfc Collector of central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., 1986 Supp SCC 751: 1987 SCC (Tax) 115] 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 judgment when regard is had to the law laid down by this court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. 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 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.
(2) ACCORDINGLY, we allow the review petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20/12/1986 and restore the cases to their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs.