TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs duty of Rs. 4,56,22,175/- i.e. around Rs. 1.14 Crores and subject to the said deposit, allowed waiver of pre-deposit of remaining dues adjudged against all the Applicants. 2. The Applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court against the said waiver order dated 13.11.2013 by filing a Writ Petition No.939(W) of 2014. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide order dated 01.04.2014, with a direction to consider the said Applications afresh in view of the findings made in the above order. Hon'ble High Court observed that the Tribunal based its findings on the merit of the impugned order and did not record any reasons relating to the fact that the petitioner is already declared as a sick industry by BIFR. The Hon'ble Court noted that from the documents as well as pleadings made before the Court that the company is before the BIFR and the scheme for rehabilitation or revival is under implementation. However, it did not consider the subsequent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt.Ltd. vs. UOI - 2010 (256) ELT A-61(SC) wherein the Apex Court held that the company has gone before the BIFR, the Tribunal or the Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tronics (supra). 5. The Ld.Advocate submitted a copy of annual accounts for the period April, 2012 to March, 2013 to support their net worth is in negative. 6. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that even if the Applicant company is in BIFR and its net worth is negative, but that itself cannot be the basis for allowing complete waiver to the Applicants, without safeguarding the interest of Revenue. Further, the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that a glance at the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2013 reveals that the total revenue earned by the company for the financial year ending as on 31.03.2013 is Rs. 4.06 Crores, the current assets is Rs. 10.16 Crores as against total assets of Rs. 16.79 Crores and the profit before tax is Rs. 4,62,828/-. He submitted that earnings per equity share works out to Rs. 0.14 (on nominal value of share of Rs. 10/-). Therefore pre-deposit of Rs. 1,14,05,544/-, as directed, would not cause any undue hardship to the Applicant. 7. The Ld.A.R. further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sagarika Acoustronics's case is binding on the parties to the said case and cannot be considered as the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vation of the Apex court, is a judgment passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and binding on the parties to the said case and it cannot be considered as binding precedent as no ratio decidendi be culled out from the said Order. What is 'ratio decidendi' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1384 at pp 1390 as: According to the well settled theory of precedents every decision contains three basic ingredients: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of (i) and (ii) above. For the purposes of the parties, themselves and their privies, ingredient No. (iii) is the material element in the decision for it determines finally their rights and liabilities in relation to the subject matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the subject-matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which when it is clear it is not part of a tribunal's duty to spell out with difficulty a ratio decidendi in order to be bound by it, and it is always dangerous to take one or two observations out of a long judgment and treat them as if they gave the ratio decidendi of the case. If more reasons than one are given by a Tribunal for its judgment, all are taken as forming the ratio decidendi. 15. There is no need to elucidate the aforesaid observation any further as these are self explanatory. Examining the present case, in the light aforesaid observation, on the issue of applicability of a judgment as binding precedent, it could easily be discerned that no principle of law has been settled by the Apex Court in Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd.s case. It is clear from a plane reading of the said judgment that it is delivered in the facts and circumstances in the said case and is binding on the parties to the case; the same cannot be made applicable to other cases as a binding precedent. In contrast, we find that the Honble Supreme Court in Metal Box case (supra) laid down the legal principle on the iss....