Judicial discipline in tariff classification required referral to a larger Bench rather than departure from an earlier three-Member view.

Classification of spun yarn under Tariff Item 18 III turned on whether the presence of non-cellulosic fibre satisfied the entry, but the Bench held that a two-Member Bench could not depart from an earlier three-Member Bench view on the same classification question. Applying judicial discipline, it referred the matter for reconsideration by a larger Bench rather than finally deciding the merits. The Bench also noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the earlier appeal did not amount to a final determination of the classification issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute concerning classification of spun yarn under Tariff Item No. 18 III could be finally decided by the Bench, or whether the matter required reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the earlier three-Member Bench view.

Analysis: The classification turned on whether the spun yarn contained non-cellulosic fibre within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 18 III (ii). The Bench noted that the tariff language was clear and that the source of the non-cellulosic fibre was not material on the wording of the entry, but it also noticed that a three-Member Bench in Vardhan Syntex had taken a contrary view. Applying judicial discipline, the Bench held that a two-Member Bench could not take a view different from the earlier three-Member Bench decision and that the proper course was to refer the matter for reconsideration. The Bench also recorded that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the earlier appeal did not finally decide the merits of the classification issue.

Conclusion: The matter was not finally decided on classification and was referred for constitution of a three-Member Bench to reconsider the earlier view.

Final Conclusion: The dispute remained open on merits and was sent for larger Bench consideration in accordance with judicial discipline.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-ordinate Bench should follow an earlier larger Bench decision, and if it finds the earlier view unsustainable, the proper course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench rather than depart from it.

---