1992 (5) TMI 36 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rice bran extractions as animal feeds under T.I. Heading 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Conflicting decisions regarding the classification of the subject goods.
3. Whether to adjourn the hearing sine die pending the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Rice Bran Extractions:
The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of rice bran extractions. The question is whether these goods fall under T.I. Heading 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and are thus liable to export duty for the period in question. The Departmental Representative argued that the issue is covered in favor of the Revenue by the Tribunal's decision in Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 552 (Tri.), which did not follow the Tribunal's earlier decision in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., 1989 (39) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.) due to the Bombay High Court's ruling in Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 (Bombay).

2. Conflicting Decisions:
The respondents' counsel, Shri C.S. Lodha, contended that there are conflicting decisions on this issue. Several cases were neither cited nor considered in the Tribunal's decision in Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. These cases include:
- Collector v. Parle Exports, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC)
- Kaira District Co-op Milk Producer's Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 186 (Bom.)
- The Modern Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 639 (New Delhi)
- Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 555 (Bom.)
- Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal)
- Sajith Tapioca Allied Products v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 99 (Tribunal)
- Bakul Cashew Company v. Union of India, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 379 (Madras)
- Cougar International Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal)

Due to these conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the controversy.

3. Adjournment Sine Die:
When the case was called for hearing, both sides suggested that the hearing be adjourned sine die pending the Supreme Court's decision in the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co. The Bench reserved the order to decide whether to adjourn the present appeals sine die or proceed without waiting for the Supreme Court's judgment.

The majority opinion held that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to adjourn the hearing sine die. This decision was based on the peculiar circumstances of the case, the short period involved (January to May 1977), and the small amount of duty in question. The decision of the Supreme Court in the related appeals would likely decide the fate of the present appeals without further arguments.

Separate Judgment:
S.L. Peeran, Member (J), disagreed with the majority view. He argued that the purpose of constituting a Larger Bench is to resolve judicial inconsistencies and that adjourning the case sine die would defeat this purpose. He emphasized that the Tribunal should proceed to hear the matter and reply to the reference, as adjourning the case would not meet the ends of justice.

Majority Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeals are adjourned sine die.

Signatories:
- S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
- G.P. Agarwal, Judicial Member
- P.C. Jain, Technical Member
- S.L. Peeran, Judicial Member
- P.K. Kapoor, Technical Member

← Previous Next →