Case Note & Summary
The case involved a review petition filed by the revenue against a judgment and order dated December 20, 1986, concerning certain items related to central excise. The respondent, a manufacturer, objected to the review, arguing that the finality of the judgment should not be disturbed lightly. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, found prima facie inconsistencies in the earlier judgment when compared to the law established in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Limited. The Court recognized that the issues raised were of substantial public importance, justifying a review of the earlier decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petitions, recalled the judgment from December 20, 1986, and ordered the cases to be listed again for fresh consideration without expressing any opinion on the merits of the points raised. The Court did not impose any costs in this matter.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Recall of Judgment - Inconsistency in Judgment - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL; Constitution of India, 1950, Article 137 - The Court found prima facie inconsistencies in the judgment dated December 20, 1986 concerning certain items, necessitating a review. The points raised by the petitioners were deemed to be of substantial public importance, warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment. Held that the review petitions were allowed, and the cases were directed to be listed again for fresh consideration (Paras 818D-819).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated December 20, 1986 should be recalled for review due to inconsistencies and points of substantial public importance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions, recalled the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986, and directed that the cases be listed again for fresh consideration without any order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review of judgment
- Inconsistency in judgment
- Substantial public importance
