-
•
)(
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
A
R
and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The respon-
dent-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 sub-
stantial 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
D
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
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 opi-
nion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public
importance, and therefore call for reconsideration.
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.
-
•
Lex