2008 (11) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere are two streams of judgments of this Court. Therefore, keeping in view the conflict of opinion, on the point involved in Rollatrainers Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 293), Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Paper Print & Products Co. (1997 (10) SCC 564) and Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997 (1) SCC 262), we deem it appropriate that these cases be placed for hearing before a larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders." 2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General pointed out that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in shor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e having dealt with large number of cases, even by visual inspection of the materials it was in a position to record a conclusion. It is also submitted that the factual scenario is not different in these cases vis-a-vis those assessees whose cases were the subject matter of the decisions which have been referred to by CEGAT. 4. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." &nbs....