Per incuriam precedent governs exemption dispute where later High Court ruling ignored earlier reasoned decision.

Exemption under Notification No. 80/70-Cus was treated as available on the facts because the imported goods were accepted as private personal property. Where two Bombay High Court decisions on the same notification conflicted, the later decision was treated as per incuriam because it had not considered the earlier reasoned ruling on the same issue. The earlier judgment was therefore followed as the governing precedent, and the order allowing the exemption claim was upheld. On that basis, the contrary view in the later decision was held not binding, and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus dated 24.08.1970 was available to imports made by a company and whether the later Bombay High Court decision denying the exemption was binding despite the earlier reasoned decision taking the opposite view.

Analysis: The exemption was claimed for imported goods treated as private personal property. Two Bombay High Court decisions on the same notification were noticed. The earlier decision contained a detailed consideration of the facts and law and had extended the benefit, while the later decision, which took a contrary view, had not considered the earlier judgment. A later judgment rendered without considering an earlier binding decision on the same issue was treated as per incuriam and, therefore, not binding. In that situation, the earlier reasoned decision was followed. On that basis, the order granting the benefit of exemption was found to be correct.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was held available on the facts, and the later contrary judgment was held not binding as per incuriam.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal failed, and the order allowing the assessee's claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two decisions of the same High Court conflict, the later decision is not binding if it did not consider an earlier reasoned decision on the same issue, and the earlier decision may be followed as the governing precedent.

---