Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2017 (9) TMI 200 - AT - CustomsReference to larger bench - whether the reference is maintainable - Jurisdiction - evidence - precedent - Whether the decision of the Tribunal in Purewall & Associates Ltd. 1983 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT BOMBAY is the correct proposition of law or that of the view expressed in re Bajaj Auto Ltd. 1994 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT NEW DELHI ? - doctrine of merger - binding nature of tribunal decision where Apex Court dismissed the SLP - refund - goods imported whether shall be called as interchangeable goods or not Held that - the decision in a case is a precedent only on the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent pleaded and such pleading supported by evidence as well as the law applied thereto - Purewall & Associates Ltd. case or Bajaj Auto Ltd. case are precedent on their own filed and to the extent the matter was in controversy therein before the Apex Court. Accordingly it is not the jurisdiction of the Larger Bench of Tribunal to hold which is the correct proposition of law in these two cases. It may be stated that in the case of Bajaj Auto only upon exercise of appellate jurisdiction appeal therein was dismissed. Therefore in the order of dismissal passed by Apex Court Tribunal s order has been merged. As a result of which decision in Bajaj Auto reached to its finality. Apex Court has held that in spite of having granted leave to appeal the Court may dismiss the appeal on such ground as may have provided foundation for refusing the grant at the earlier stage. But that will be a dismissal of appeal. The decision of Apex Court results in superseding the decision under appeal and thereby attracts the doctrine of merger. The irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the Bench referring the matter to Larger Bench should have examined all the four appeals before it threadbare on the facts pleadings of both sides and evidence as well as law applicable thereto to arrive at its conclusion and stated reason of reference in clear terms having regard to the law as has been explained hereinbefore. Only upon detailed examination of each case the Division Bench may have occasion to know whether the earlier decision of Tribunal on the same point is an impediment to the Referring Bench to reach to a conclusion different from the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of Tribunal following rule of judicial discipline so as to make a reference to Larger Bench for answer. Therefore without touching the merit of the cases as well as plea of limitation raised before us we have only made effort to explain the law on the subject relating to reference to Larger Bench as well as law relating to the rule of judicial discipline and precedent and star decis having been faced with the difficulty of absence of reason why the Division Bench found earlier decisions of Tribunal were impediment for it to draw a different conclusion we return the reference to the Division Bench to deal the matter before it in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|