Collector of Central Excise & Ors Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.  INSC
162 (1 May 1989)
R.S. (Cj) Pathak, R.S. (Cj) Sharma, L.M. (J)
1989 SCR (2) 817 1989 SCC (3) 238 JT 1989 (2) 332 1989 SCALE (1)1592
Court Rules, 1966: Order XL--Judgment inconsistent with law on certain
items--Review of--Points of substantial public importance raised--Review
of India, 1950: Article
137--Judgment--Review of--When permitted.
petitioners-revenue filed petitions for review of the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 passed by this Court. The
respondent-manufacturers objected to the same on the ground that finality of
the judgment should be maintained and not disturbed lightly.
the Review petitions, this Court,
Prima facie an inconsistency is present in the judgment in respect of certain
items when regard is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India
v. Bombay Tyres International Limited,  1 SCR 347. Besides, the points
raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance and call for reconsideration[818D]
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 are recalled and the cases directed
to be listed again for fresh consideration. [818D] Union of India v.
Bombay Tyres International Limited,  1 SCR 347 relied on.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos. 597 to 60 1 of 1987.
IN C.A. Nos, 3195/79, 4731-32/84, SLP No. 10108/80 and C.A.No.
WITH C.A. Nos. 1313 & 388/81, SLPNo. 36/80, W.P. No.
192/77, SLP No. 404 1/81 and C.A. No.
K. Swamy and P. Parmeshwaran for the Petitioners.
Anil B. Diwan, R.K. Lukose, K.R. Nambir, A.N. Haksar, D.N. Mishra and P.K. Ram
for the Respondent.
Order of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ. After hearing learned counsel
for the parties briefly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 20
December, 1986 of which review is sought, should be recalled and the cases be
heard again on the merits. It appears to us prima facie that in respect of
certain items an inconsistency is present in the impugned judgment when regard
is had to the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. Bombay Tyres
International Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are being
reopened, we refrain from expressing any opinion at this stage on the merits of
the points raised in the cases. Objection was taken by the respondent
manufacturers to the Review Petitions on the ground that the finality of the
judgment should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our
opinion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public
importance, and therefore call for reconsideration.
we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judgment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to their
original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration.
There is no order as to costs.