UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus PARAS LAMINATES (P) LTD.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 17-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
PARAS LAMINATES (P) LTD. 
AUGUST 17, 1990 
[T.K. TIIOMMEN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: Sections 129-C(5)(6)-5copeof. 
c..-. 
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal-Bench 
.-- ~of two Members-Doubting correctness of a judicial decision of a 
Bench of three members of the Tribunal-Reference to President of the 
Tribunal for constituting a larger Bench-Constitution of a larger 
Bench by the President-Whether contrary to judicial Discipline. 
,_ 
The respondent imported certain goods and claimed in its Bills of 
- ________ Entry that the imported goods fell under Tariff Item No. 84.60. 'Rte 
Customs Authorities rejected the claim by holding that the goods were 
classifiable under Tariff Item No. 73.15(2). The respondents preferred 
an appeal before the Collector of Customs which was also dismissed. 
Thereafter, the respondent filed a second appeal before the Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal contending that in view 
of the earlier decision of a Bench of three members of the Tribunal in 
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. Bombay & Anr. v. Collector of Customs, Bomaby 
--
·-.., & Anr., [1986] 25 E.L.T. 240 an identical classification ought to have 
been adopted by the Customs authorities for identical goods. By its 
order dated 22.10.1986 a Bench of two members of the Tribunal stated 
that they doubted the correctness of the earlier decision of a Bench of 
the three members of the Tribunal and they referred the case to the 
President of the Tribunal for constitnting a larger Bench. By its order 
dated 4.3.1987 the President of the Tribunal referred the case to a 
larger Bench of five members. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F· 
the orders of the Bench of two members and that of the President of the 
Tribunal, which struck down both the orders by holding that the Bench 
G 
of two members ought to have followed the earlier decision ol'the larger 
Bench of 3 judges and a reference of the case to a still larger Bench was 
contrary to judicial precedent and judicial discipline. 
,.,_ 
J_ 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the Union of 
India that Section 129-C of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Presi-
H 
789 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
dent of the Tribunal to constitute larger Benches to resolve conflicts in 
opinion arising between members of a Bench or between Benches of the 
Tribunal. The Tribunal has ample powers to regulate its own proce- ·"' 
dure, apart from the express provisions of the statute in that behalf. 
On behalf of the 'respondent, it was contended that the Trib•mal is 
B 
a creature of the Statute. Its jurisdiction is limited to the specific powers 
conferred by the statute. It has no inherent jurisdiction and its powers 
are not plenary and are limited to the express provisions contained in 
the statute. 
_ .Jilli 
·' ... 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a 
Court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers con-
ferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it 
has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to -
make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain 
D 
powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are 
inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but 
because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly 
granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and mean-
ingfully exercised. l794F-G I 
E 
1.1 Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants \ 
the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are 
essentially necessary to its execution. [795A] 
Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh edition and 
Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, [1969] 71 
F 
ITR 815, referred to. 
2. It is true that sub-section (5) refers to difference of opinion i 
arising amongst members of a Bench in a particular case, and not 
specifically where the members of a Bench doubt the correctness of an 
earlier decision. However, section 129.C confers power of reference 
G 
npon the President. That power should he construed to be wide enough 
to enable the President to make a reference where members of a Bench 
find themselves unable to decide a case according to what they percieve 
to be the correct la

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