COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE versus SRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 27-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R 720-. 
· . . it' : .... " 1 . 
A . -COMMNR. ·aF· c·ENTRAL. EXCIS~, BANGALORE 
.. . · -
... ·: 
.,· 
. 
: .. 
. . 
. 
. ·. 
.. . . ·. .. .. 
. .·. 
v. 
• 
SRIKUMAR AGENC1ES ETC .. ETC. 
· ·.,(Civil Appear No: 4872-48.92 of 2000) ·. 
a· 
<·.- ·. \, . ; :· ' . . ·f\Jqv~MBER 27, 2ooa 
. ,~ 
. [OR. ARIJIT .P A,Sf!. VA 1, P. SAT~ASIVAM AND 
AFTA·a· AtAM, JJ.j . 
•. 
C ·· . Administration of Justice: 
Disposal of cases - Held - By clubbing the· cases 
together and without analyzing special features of each case, 
disposal of appeals by mere: reference to decisions and in the 
o manner done by CEGATwas not proper- Courts should not 
place reliance on decisions Without discussing as_ to how 
factua/ ·situ·ation of the case in him~ · fits in with that of the 
·decision on which reliance is placed .- Precedent. 
E 
The instant appeals filed by Revenue, were listed 
before the three· Judge Bench for consideration of the 
question: "whether the ·pintir,g. on the packag~ is m·er~ly 
incidental or primary". 
F 
During the hearing of the appeals,·it was pointed out 
that the c ·ustotns, Excise and .'Gold (Control). Appellate 
Tribunal disposed of several a·ppeats merely by relying 
on the · decisions . and without detailed analysis· of the 
factual position involved. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Courts should -not place reliance on 
dec.ision·s without discussing as to how the factual 
720 
.. 
. 
. 
; 
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE v. 
721 
SRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC. 
situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on 
A 
which reliance is placed. Gircumstantial flexibility, one 
additional or different fact may make a world of differenc·~ 
between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by 
blindly placing reliance on ·a decision is not proper . .[Para 
4 and 5] [723-E; 724-E] 
B 
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horlon 1951 AC 737 
p.761; Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. 1970 (2) AllER 294 
and Herrington v. British Railways Board 1972 (2) WLR 537 ~ 
referred to. 
C 
1.2. In the instant matters, since the factual position' 
has not been analysed in detail, by clubbing all the cases 
together and without analyzing the special features of 
each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done 
0 
was not proper. The CEGAT also does not appear to have_ 
dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case*. 
J. 
The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases 
'y 
individually and the articles involved. In the 
circumstances, the impugned judgment in each ·case is 
E 
set aside and the matter is remitted to 'CESTAT' to be· 
dealt with by the appropriate Bench. [Para 6] [725-B-0] 
. .., 
I. T. C. Ltd. v . .Collector of Central Excise, Madras JT 1998. 
(8) SC 527, referred to. 
F 
--t 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
+ 
4872-4892 of 2000 . 
. From the final Common Order No. 3008-3028/1999 dated 
25.11.1999 of. the Custom~. Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate 
G 
Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal Nos. E/1561, 
E/.1038, E/787, E/997 of 1999, E/2940-2945, E/1252-1253, 
E/54-57 and E/44-48 of 1998. 
H 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008} 16 S.C.R. 
A 
G.E. Vaharivati, S.G.; T.A. Khan, Oevadatt Kamat, Rahul 
-{ 
: Kaushik,'S.N: Terda1,·B. Krishna Prasad, V. Lakshmi Kumaran, 
t 
Alol< Yadav, Rajesh Kumar, M:P. Devanath, Rana Mukherjee, 
,.. 
· ·Siddharth-Gautam, Goodwilllndeevar, Ravinder Narain, Sonu 
. Bliatnagat, 'Ajay Aggrawal, Sudha Malia and.Rajan Narain for 
. B the appearing parties. 
. ' 
· · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ 
' 
· .. OR. ARIJit PASAYAT, J. 1.'These appeals were placed 
--r " 
c before a three-Judge Bench because of reference made by a 
Division Bench with the following order: 
"The point involved in this batch of appeals is 
. . · whether the printing on the package is merely incidental 
o · 
. or primary. On this point we fin.d that there are two streams 
· of judgments of this Court. The'refore, keeping in view the 
... conflict -of opinion, on the point involved in Rollatrainers 
Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India. & Ors. ( 1994 Suppl. (3) 
-4 
SCC .. 293), Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Paper 
'i 
E 
Print & products Co. (1997 (1 0) SCC 564) and 
· Metagraphs ·Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 
. Bombay ( 1997 ( 1) sec 262) I we deem it appropriate that 
these cases be placed for hearing before a larger Bench. 
Registry is directed to place the matter before 
~ 
F 
Hon'ble the Chief Justice tor app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.