Pre-deposit compliance and factual context must be addressed before merits; precedents apply only where facts are materially similar.

An appellate tribunal must address the threshold consequence of dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F before deciding the merits of a classification dispute. The text states that the tribunal erred by proceeding directly to merits without first considering that procedural bar. It also emphasises that precedents cannot be applied mechanically: earlier decisions may be followed only where the material facts are substantially the same, and a material factual difference can alter the outcome. The factual finding that tobacco powder obtained by crushing unmanufactured tobacco was a distinct commercial product was relevant and could not be ignored. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal was justified in deciding the classification dispute on merits without first examining the effect of dismissal of the first appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The first appeals had been dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F. The tribunal was required to consider that threshold issue before entering upon the merits. The adjudicating authority had also recorded a factual finding that the tobacco powder obtained by crushing un-manufactured tobacco was a distinct commercial product with a separate name and character. The tribunal could not ignore the factual setting and decide the matter merely by relying on earlier decisions without showing how those cases matched the facts before it. Judicial precedents must be applied with reference to their factual context, and a material factual difference may change the result.

Conclusion: The tribunal erred in deciding the appeals on merits without first addressing the consequence of non-compliance with Section 35F. The impugned orders were unsustainable and were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A precedent cannot be applied mechanically; an appellate forum must first deal with the jurisdictional or procedural issue before entering the merits, and reliance on earlier decisions is permissible only where the material facts are shown to be substantially the same.

---