2002 (1) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court without a detailed judgment constitutes a binding precedent.
2. Misreading of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Kunayammed v. State of Kerala.
3. Applicability of the decision in Ashish Steel Pvt. Ltd. case.
4. Classification and excisability of goods under specific Tariff Headings.
5. Alleged factual inaccuracies in the Assistant Collector's order.
6. Denial of natural justice in the approval of the Classification List.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Binding Precedent of Supreme Court's Dismissal:
The applicants argued that a mere dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court does not create a binding precedent. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sun Exports Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Anr., where it was held that dismissal at the admission stage cannot be relied upon as a binding precedent. The Tribunal, however, noted that the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, decided later, clarified that an order dismissing a special leave petition does not result in the merger of the order impugned into the order of the Supreme Court.

2. Misreading of Kunayammed Judgment:
The applicants contended that there was a misreading of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kunayammed v. State of Kerala, specifically regarding the non-merger of orders when a special leave petition is dismissed. The Tribunal found that the dismissal in the present case was of an appeal, not a special leave petition, and thus the ruling in Kunayammed was correctly applied.

3. Applicability of Ashish Steel Pvt. Ltd. Case:
The applicants argued that the decision in Ashish Steel Pvt. Ltd. should not be considered binding as the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The Tribunal maintained that the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court resulted in the Tribunal's order merging with the Supreme Court's order, thus making it binding.

4. Classification and Excisability Under Tariff Headings:
The applicants claimed that their clearances were under Tariff Headings 72.15 and 73.09 and not 'waste and scrap' under sub-heading 7203.00. They argued that excisability could not be attached to these clearances, relying on the Calcutta High Court's decision in S.S. Jain v. Union of India. The Tribunal noted that the classification aspect was not clearly raised in the applications and that the Tribunal had followed the Supreme Court's decision, which took precedence over the High Court's ruling.

5. Factual Inaccuracies in Assistant Collector's Order:
The applicants pointed out alleged factual inaccuracies in the Assistant Collector's order, such as the classification of certain materials as scrap. The Tribunal held that these issues should have been addressed with the appropriate authorities and could not be considered as mistakes in the Tribunal's order.

6. Denial of Natural Justice in Classification List Approval:
The applicants argued that there was a denial of natural justice as the approval of the Classification List was done without verification. The Tribunal found that this issue was not clearly stated in the applications and was not argued before the Commissioner (Appeals), thus it could not be treated as a mistake.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that no clear mistakes of law or fact were pointed out by the applicants. The Tribunal's order was based on the correct application of the Supreme Court's decisions and the relevant legal principles. Therefore, the applications for rectification of mistakes were rejected.

← Previous Next →