Prior decision on an admitted premise is not binding authority; no genuine conflict justified a Larger Bench reference on MMRDA status.

A prior CESTAT decision cannot be treated as authority on an issue that was only assumed on an admitted premise and not actually contested or decided. On that basis, Patel Engineering Ltd. was not binding on whether MMRDA qualifies as a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Shreeji Construction alone contained the substantive determination on MMRDA's character, and it concluded, after examining its statutory origin, structure and functions, that MMRDA is not such a corporation. Because Patel Engineering Ltd. did not decide the point, there was no real conflict between the two decisions and a Larger Bench reference was unwarranted; the reference was declined and the appeal was remitted to the appropriate Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier decision in Patel Engineering Ltd. constituted an authority on the question whether MMRDA is a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.; (ii) whether any conflict existed between Patel Engineering Ltd. and Shreeji Construction warranting a Larger Bench reference.

Issue (i): whether the earlier decision in Patel Engineering Ltd. constituted an authority on the question whether MMRDA is a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Analysis: The earlier decision proceeded on the admitted position that Revenue did not dispute the status of MMRDA as a road construction corporation. Since the question was not in issue and was not decided on contest, that decision could not be treated as authority on the point.

Conclusion: Patel Engineering Ltd. was not a binding authority on whether MMRDA is a road construction corporation under Condition No. 40(a) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.

Issue (ii): whether any conflict existed between Patel Engineering Ltd. and Shreeji Construction warranting a Larger Bench reference.

Analysis: Shreeji Construction alone contained a substantive adjudication on the character of MMRDA and held, on a detailed examination of its statutory origin, structure and functions, that it is not a road construction corporation. As Patel Engineering Ltd. did not decide that question, no conflict arose between the two decisions.

Conclusion: No conflict existed, and the Larger Bench reference was misconceived.

Final Conclusion: The reference was declined, and the matter was sent back to the appropriate Bench for disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision rendered on an admitted or undisputed premise is not an authority on that point, and a Larger Bench reference is unwarranted where no genuine conflict exists between prior decisions.

---