2017 (9) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Precedents, Emphasizes Judicial Discipline

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

The Larger Bench concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Supreme Court's decisions in Purewall & Associates Ltd. and Bajaj Auto Ltd., as ... Reference to larger bench - whether the reference is maintainable - Jurisdiction - evidence - precedent - Whether the decision of the Tribunal in Purewall & Associates Ltd. [1983 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT BOMBAY] is the correct proposition of law or that of the view expressed in re Bajaj Auto Ltd. [1994 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]? - doctrine of merger - binding nature of tribunal decision where Apex Court dismissed the SLP - refund - goods imported whether shall be called as interchangeable goods or not Held that: - the decision in a case is a precedent only on the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent pleaded and such pleading supported by evidence as well as the law applied thereto - Purewall & Associates Ltd. case or Bajaj Auto Ltd. case are precedent on their own filed and to the extent the matter was in controversy therein before the Apex Court. Accordingly it is not the jurisdiction of the Larger Bench of Tribunal to hold which is the correct proposition of law in these two cases. It may be stated that in the case of Bajaj Auto, only upon exercise of appellate jurisdiction, appeal therein was dismissed. Therefore in the order of dismissal passed by Apex Court, Tribunal's order has been merged. As a result of which decision in Bajaj Auto reached to its finality. Apex Court has held that in spite of having granted leave to appeal, the Court may dismiss the appeal on such ground as may have provided foundation for refusing the grant at the earlier stage. But that will be a dismissal of appeal. The decision of Apex Court results in superseding the decision under appeal and thereby attracts the doctrine of merger. The irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the Bench referring the matter to Larger Bench should have examined all the four appeals before it, threadbare on the facts, pleadings of both sides and evidence as well as law applicable thereto, to arrive at its conclusion and stated reason of reference in clear terms having regard to the law as has been explained hereinbefore. Only upon detailed examination of each case, the Division Bench may have occasion to know whether the earlier decision of Tribunal on the same point is an impediment to the Referring Bench to reach to a conclusion different from the earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of Tribunal following rule of judicial discipline so as to make a reference to Larger Bench for answer. Therefore, without touching the merit of the cases as well as plea of limitation raised before us, we have only made effort to explain the law on the subject relating to reference to Larger Bench as well as law relating to the rule of judicial discipline and precedent and star decis, having been faced with the difficulty of absence of reason why the Division Bench found earlier decisions of Tribunal were impediment for it to draw a different conclusion, we return the reference to the Division Bench to deal the matter before it in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:1. Refund Claim Without Challenging Order-In-Original2. Classification of Imported Goods3. Interchangeability of Press Tool Dies4. Reference to Larger Bench and Judicial Discipline5. Doctrine of Merger and PrecedentDetailed Analysis:1. Refund Claim Without Challenging Order-In-OriginalThe primary issue in Appeal Nos. C/442/04, C/444/04, and C/445/04 was whether a refund could be claimed without contesting the order-in-original. The Adjudicating Authority had denied the refund claims, and these appeals questioned the necessity of challenging the original adjudication to claim a refund.2. Classification of Imported GoodsThe appeals also dealt with the classification of imports made during different periods, specifically before and after 1.3.1986, when tariff entries changed. The periods in question were 1983-84, 1984-85, 1996-97, and 1997-98. The dispute involved whether the goods should fall under CTH 84.45/48 or CTH 82.05 before 1.3.1986, and under CTH 820730 or CTH 846694 post-1.3.1986. The classification affected the levy of basic customs duty, excise duty, and additional customs duty.3. Interchangeability of Press Tool DiesA significant point of contention was whether the imported press tool dies were interchangeable. The appellant argued that these dies were customized for specific machines and not interchangeable, challenging the findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal's previous decisions in Purewall & Associates Ltd. and Bajaj Auto Ltd. were central to this debate. The appellant contended that the dies were not interchangeable and should be classified under Chapter 84, contrary to the lower authorities' reliance on Note (1)(o).4. Reference to Larger Bench and Judicial DisciplineThe Division Bench referred the matter to the Larger Bench to resolve whether the decision in Purewall & Associates Ltd. or Bajaj Auto Ltd. was the correct legal proposition. The Larger Bench was asked to address the judicial discipline and the necessity of referring to a Larger Bench when a coordinate Bench disagrees with an earlier decision. The Apex Court's judgment in Gammon India Ltd. emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the proper procedure for referring matters to a Larger Bench.5. Doctrine of Merger and PrecedentThe Larger Bench examined whether the decisions in Purewall & Associates Ltd. and Bajaj Auto Ltd. had merged with the Supreme Court's orders and thus became binding precedents. The doctrine of merger implies that once the Supreme Court decides on an appeal, the lower court's order merges with the Supreme Court's decision, making it a binding precedent. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the civil appeal in Purewall & Associates Ltd. affirmed the Tribunal's view on interchangeability, making it a binding precedent. Similarly, the dismissal of the appeal in Bajaj Auto Ltd. as withdrawn also resulted in the Tribunal's order merging with the Supreme Court's decision.Conclusion:The Larger Bench concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Supreme Court's decisions in Purewall & Associates Ltd. and Bajaj Auto Ltd., as these had become binding precedents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to precedents to maintain consistency and predictability in the administration of justice. The reference was returned to the Division Bench for a detailed examination of each appeal, ensuring that any deviation from earlier decisions was well-reasoned and justified.