COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA versus M/S ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 21-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA 
A 
V. 
MIS ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ANR. 
JULY 21, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 
S.35(F), Schedule-Tariff Sub-heading 2404.90-Tobacco powder/ 
dust obtained by crushing unmanufactured tobacco leaves-Classified C 
under Sub-heading 2404.90 and demand raised-Collector (Appeals) 
confirming the demand and dismissing appeals for non-compliance of 
s.35(F)-Tribunal without examining the issue of non-compliance of 
s.35(F), allowing the appeal on merits-Held, judgment of Tribunal is 
unsustainable. 
Precedent-Reliance on decisions-Held, court should not place 
reliance on decisions without discussing their factual situations. 
Judgments-Construing of-Held, judgments of courts are not to be 
construed as statutes. 
D 
E 
The assessee-respondents, who were engaged in manufacture of 
tobacco powder/dust, were served with show cause notices and demands 
stating that their product fell under sub-heading 2404.90 of the 
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The demands were F 
confirmed. Appeals filed before Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) 
were dismissed for non-compliance of s.35(F) of the Act. The Customs, 
Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal on 
merits holding that the item was classifiable under tariff sub-heading 
2401.00 as unmanufactured tobacco. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed the 
present appeals. 
It was contended for the Revenue that the Tribunal should not 
have gone into merits of the case as the issue before it related to the 
propriety of dismissal of appeals by Collector (Appeals) for non-
G 
compliance of the order in terms of s.35(F) of the Act. 
H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matter back to 
CEGAT, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. CEGAT did not consider the relevant aspects and 
proceeded to decide the appeals on merits without examining the 
B propriety of dismissal of appeals by the Collector (Appeals) for non-
compliance with the requirements of Section 35(F) of the Central 
Excise Tariff Act, 1985. No finding has been recorded by CEGAT in 
this regard. (113-D; 115-B) 
2.1. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discuss-
C ing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the 
decision on which reliance is placed. Circumstantial flexibility, one 
additional or different fact, may make a world of difference between 
conclusions in two cases. Observations of courts 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 
D 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. [L13-F-G; 114-E) 
2.2. In the instant case, there was a categorical finding recorded 
E on facts by the adjudicating authority that the tobacco powder obtained 
bycrushingofun-manufactured tobacco leaves, is a different commercial 
product having a distinct name and character; whereas in the case* 
relied upon by CEGA T it was specifically noticed that there was no 
material placed by Central Excise authorities to show that a different 
commercial product had come into existence. [113-D-E) 
F 
G 
*Sree Biswa Vijaya Industries v. CCE Bhubaneshwar, [1997) 96 
ELT 712 (Tribunal); Shamsuddin Akbar Khan & Co. v. Commissioner 
of Central Excise, BBRS (Order No. A-888/Cal/97 dated 29.7.1997), 
distinguished. 
Shree Chand Agarwal v. Collector of Central Excise, (1990) 48 ELT 
115 (Tribunal), cited. 
London Graving Dock Co. ltd v. Horton, (1951) AC 737; Home 
Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., [197012 All ER 294 and Herrington v. British 
H Railways Board, [19721 2 WLR 537, cited. 
; 
C.C.E. v. ALNOOR! TOBACCO PRODUCTS [PASA Y AT, J.] 
111 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4502- A 
4503 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.98 of the Central Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench at Calcutta in A. No. 
E(SB)-665, 666/92 in F.O. No. A-254-255 of 1998. 
K. Swami and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Singh, Ms. Divya Roy and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Respond-
en ts. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. : These appeals are directed against the 
common judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate 
Tribunal, Eastern Bran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.