2023 (10) TMI 168 - SCH - Central Excise

Supreme Court clarifies case-specific observations in final order, not universal principles. Appeal dismissed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, emphasizing that the Tribunal's observations in the final order were specific to the case at hand and should ... Precedent decision - Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant submitted that the observations of the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the impugned final order M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, JABALPUR (M.P.) [2023 (3) TMI 1067 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] would become a precedent in subsequent cases as those observations are general in nature and, therefore, would be followed by the Tribunal in other cases. HELD THAT:- The said contention of learned ASG cannot be agreed for the simple reason that those observations have been made in the context of what has been stated by the Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the impugned final order wherein details of as many as five audits for the relevant periods have been noted by the Tribunal and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Tribunal held that the Department could not have the benefit of the extended period of limitation. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved: Interpretation of Tribunal's observations leading to the dismissal of Civil Appeal.The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed the issue of the Tribunal's observations in a final order becoming a precedent in subsequent cases. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the observations would set a general precedent, but the Court disagreed. The Court noted that the observations were made in the context of specific details provided by the Tribunal in the impugned final order, relating to audits and the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Court held that the observations in question were specific to the facts of the case at hand and not to be applied universally.The Court emphasized that the observations in paragraph 12 of the final order were intricately linked to the unique circumstances of the case being considered. It was clarified that these observations should not be considered as general principles to be applied across all cases, independent of their specific factual backgrounds. The Court's decision to dismiss the Civil Appeal was based on the understanding that the observations were not intended to establish a broad precedent but were confined to the particular context of the case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, with the understanding that the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the final order were specific to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. The Court's ruling clarified that these observations should not be extrapolated to apply universally across all cases, as they were context-specific and not intended as general principles.