[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. 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". 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.
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 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE v. SRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC.
situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on 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] 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. 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 was not proper. The CEGAT also does not appear to have_ dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case*. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases
'y individually and the articles involved. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment in each ·case is 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. –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 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. [2008} 16 S.C.R. 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 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 Hon'ble the Chief Justice tor appropriate orders." 2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General pointed out that the
Customs, Exci~e and Gold (Control) Appellate TribiJnal, _Chennai (in short 'CEGA T') disposed of several appeals without detailed analysis -of the factual position involved. It merely referred to some judgments and submissions of learned t
counsel for the assessees who ·are present respondents to hold that the assessees are entitled to relief. The conclusions are COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE. BANGALORE v. SRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
practically non-reasoned and abrupt conclusions were ·arrived y at to hold that printing on media was not merely incidental to its primary use but in fact clearly show the' nature of goods contained therein. It is pointed out that five categories were involved. ln·the case·ofrespondents -Srikumar agencie.s the article involved was Printed Gay Matter and Printed Agarbathi, ·e in the case of M/s Faxwell Printers the article involved was Printed Gay Wrappers, in the case of M!s Raj hans Enterprises ~ the article involv~d was Printed Labels, in the case of Sree Vijay Industries, it was Printed Agarbathi Labels and in the c case of Regency Printers, it was Printed Labels. The articles were contextually different. It was also submitted that without detailed anaylsis of the factual position mere reliance on the decisions was not the proper way to dispose of the appeals. It is also pointed out that the view expressed by CEGAT even
on. facts was contrary to the ratio laid down by' this Court in I. T. C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras ( JT 1998 (8) sc 527) . …., 3. In response, learned counsel for the respondents-
assessees submitted that the CEGAT is the last finding E authority. From its· varied experience having dealt wfth large number of cases. even by visual inspection of the materials !t was in a position to record a conclusion. lt·is also submitted that the factual scenario is not different in these cases vis-a- vis those assessees whose cases were the subject matter of the decisions which have been referred to by CEGAT.
4. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without p discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact . ' sitl!ation of the d~~ision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are neither. to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the ·statute and that too taken out ….. of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts · H
[2008) 16 S.C.R. A are·not·to-be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and 'provisions of a· statute, it 'may become necessary for judge·s t6 emb.ark into lengthy discussions but the dis~·ussion is m.eari~ to ·e-xplain a~d not tb define. Judges interp·ret statutes, ttiey do nol interpret judgments. They interpret words of
B statutes;· the.if· words. are riot to be interpreted as statutes.· In Lopdoh Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p ~761), Lord Mac.Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely .by treating c
the ipsissima vertra of Willesj J as though they were part of an Act of-Parliament and· applying the rules of interpretation appropr~ate thereto: This is not to.detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge."
In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech …. .is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition It will require qualification in new . circumstances:" Megany, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: · E "One must not, of course, ·construe even a reserved judgment. of Russell L.J . . as if it .were an· Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v BrtishRailways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord
Morris said: "There i~. always peri_ I in treating the wo~ds of a. speec~ or judgment. as though they are words· in': ~ legislative . . . . .• .. enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular -case."· 5. Circumstantial ~lexibility , one additional or different fact may make a world _ot_difference between qo!'lclusions in two cases. Disposal of ca~es by blindly placing reliance on a
decis.ion is not proper. · . y ' I I l= ' • ' •I . ,……, ~ .. l -\-' COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE v. SRIKUMAR AGENCIES ETC. ETC. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] y The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of A
applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because . even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, . a· in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation
-r to decide cases (as .said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
"Precedent should be followed only so far · as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path ~ 'f
to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 6. Since the factual position has not been analysed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The
CEGAT also does not aP.pear to have dealt with the relevanc;:e and applicability of fTC's case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor …-.4 General. The CEGAT ought to have examined the cases
individually and the articles involved. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. In the circumstances, we set aside the
impugned judgment in each case and remit the matter to CEGAT presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( in short 'CESTAT') to be dealt with by the appropriate Bench. In view of th~ aforesaid order · there is no need to answer the reference made.
{2008] 16 S.9.R. 7. Since the matters are·pending since long, we request -y the CESTAT to d·lspose offt1e appeals as early as· possible pre.ferably by the·end of February, 2009: .. · . . ;
. 8._ Ttle appeals are accordingly d.isposed of. . R.P . . Apf)eal disposed of . . CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION :Civil Appeal Nos. 333-334. of 2001. From the final Order Nos. 226 & 227 of 2000 dated
10.02.2000 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal Nos. f?/331/99 & E/1703/99. .J Comm~r. of Central. Excise, Bangalore … Appellant
v. M/s FAXWELL Printers, Bangalore … Respondents The· Judgment of the Co.urt was delivered by QR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. 1. Challenge in these ·appeals is to .th~ judg111ent of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate. Tribunal, South .Zonal Bench· at Madras (in short F 'CEGA 1\ In ·these cases the CEGAT followed the order passed in the cas~ of ·Srikumar Agencies. who was one of the
respon~ents· in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000. By our separ¥il:te judgment toda·y in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000, we have set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the G matter to it to b~ dealt with afresh. The decision in the said · … … –
case shall apply _to the facts of the present case. . . .. : · 2 .. The ~ appeals will be heard afresh by . the appropriate bench ofCEGATwhich is presently known as.customs, Excise
H & Service' Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT'). y '• . 1- ,._ COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATTA-1 v. WEB 727 IMPRESSION INDIA l TO. 3. Since th~ matter is pending for long, we request the
..,.. CEST AT to dispose of the appeals as early as possible preferably by the end of February, 2009. 4. The appeals are allowed. R.P . Appeal allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .
2515 of 2002. From the final Order No. A-1 089/KOL/2001 dated 20.9.2001 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East~rn Bench at Kolkata in Appeal No. EIR-178/
2001 . Commnr. of Central Excise, Kolkatta-1 … Appellant v . M/s Web Impression India Ltd …. Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench Kolkatta (in short 'CEGAT). I F In this case the QEGAT followed the order passed by another Bench of CEGAT in the case of Srikumar Agencies who was
one of the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000. By our separate judgment today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872- 4892 of 2000 we have set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the matter to it to be dealt with afresh. The decision G in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case. 2. The appeal will be heard afresh by the appropriate
bench· of CEGAT which is presently known as Customs, Excise A & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT'). · 3: Since the matter is pending fo_r long,· we request the· CESTAT to dispose of the appeal as early as possible
preferably by the end of February, 2009. 4. The appeal is allowed. R.P. Appeal allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Civil Appeal Nos. 3477-3478 of 2001 . . · From the final Order No. 1056 & 1057 of 2000 dated .
sta·.-2000 of the Cu-stoms Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribu'na!., South Zonal Bench, Chcnnai in Appeal Nos. E/824- D 825 of 2000. Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore-11 … Appellant
v. •. =;M/s Rajhan.~ En~erprises and Anr …. Respondents ~ … I• • ) .. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J . . Challenge in thes~ appeals is · F to the jli.dgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (in short
'CEGAT'). In these cases the CEGAT followed the order passed in the _case of Srikumar Agencies who was one of the respondents· in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000. By our G- s~parate judgme-nt today in· Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000, we have set aside the order of CEGAT and remitted the matter to it to be dealt with afresh. The decision in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case.
l … r . NU TECH PACKAGINGS v. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL 729. EXCISE, NOIDA 2. The appeals will be heard afresh by the appropriate -4 bench of CEGAT which is presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT').
3. Since the matter is pending for long, we request the CEST AT to dispose of the appeals as early as possible preferably by the end of February, 2009. 4. The appeals are allowed.
R.P. Appeal allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9731 of 2003. From the final Order No. 397/03-B 2000 dated 18.6.2003 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/762/02-NB(B).
M/s Nu Tech Packagings … Appellant v. Commnr. of Central Excise, Noida … Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ·oR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi {in short 'CESTAT).In this _case the CESTAT followed the order passed in the case of Srikumar Agencies_ who was one of the respondents in Civil App-eal Nos. 4872- 4892 of 2000. By our separate judgment today in Civil Appeal Nos. 4872-4892 of 2000 we have set aside the · order of
CEST AT and remitted the matter to it. to be dealt with afresh. The decision in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case. ,C · · 2. ·The apP.eal will .be -heard afresh by the appropriate bench of C~STJ\J.
3. Since the matter is pending for long, we request CE$T AT to dispose .o~ the appeal a~ early as possible ·B preferably by the end of February, 2009. c 4. The appeal is allowed. R.P.
Appeal allowed. CIVIL APPELLATE JUR:SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7034 qf 2001 . From the final Order No. C1 /1055/WZB/2001dated 0 24.p3.2001. of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) ·
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appe~l No. E/3299~2000 . Commnr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-1 … Appell.ant v. M/s Tanzeem Screenarts … Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is F to· t~e judgment of Customs, Excise al')d Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (in short 'CEGAT'). In th_is case the CEGAT ·followed the order passed in the case of Srikumar
Agencies who was :one of the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. G 4872-489l of 2000. By our separate judgment today in Civil' Appeal Nos .. 4872-4892 of 2000 we have set aside the order · of CEGAT and remitted the matter to it-to be dealt with afresh.· . The decision in the said case shall apply to the facts of the present case.
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-1 v. TANZEEM 731 SCREENARTS 2. The appeal will be heard afresh by the appropriate A bench of CEGAT which is presently known as Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'CESTAT').
3. Since the matter is pending for long, we request the CESTAT to dispose of the appeal as early as possible a preferably by the end of February, 2009. 4. The appeal is allowed. R.P.
Appeals dispqsed of.