2005 (10) TMI 95 - SC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Whether this CEGAT in its order dated 4-5-2001 has rightly held that the assessee was not entitled to Modvat credit on the secondary packing for the packing of laminated pouches of pan masala - Held that - question of law does arise for consideration of the High Court and we, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court calling for interference. However, we observe that the observations made by the High Court in its impugned order, which have a bearing on the merit of the question framed for consideration of the High Court is only prima facie opinion of the High Court, which is neither binding nor final, and in any event, those observations shall neither prejudice the case of the parties nor be treated as a binding precedent by the Court which ultimately determines the question of law referred to it - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
High Court's framing of a question of law under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference to the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments from both sides, addressed the issue of the question of law framed by the High Court under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court had framed a specific question regarding Modvat credit on secondary packing for laminated pouches of pan masala. The Additional Solicitor General contended that the question of law did not arise for consideration and raised concerns about the observations made by the High Court in its order, suggesting they could prejudice the Revenue's case. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the observations in the High Court's order, including the prima facie opinion expressed, were the basis for calling for a reference and were not binding or final. After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court found that a question of law did indeed arise for the High Court's consideration. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to call for a reference but clarified that the observations made were only prima facie opinions, not binding or prejudicial to the parties involved. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with these observations, emphasizing that the High Court's remarks should not influence the final decision on the question of law referred to it.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between prima facie opinions and final decisions in legal proceedings. It underscores the need for impartial consideration of questions of law without being swayed by initial observations. The Supreme Court's clarification serves to ensure that parties are not unduly prejudiced by interim remarks and that the ultimate determination of the question of law remains unaffected by preliminary opinions.