ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD.

Review is permissible where there is prima facie inconsistency with the law laid down by Supreme Court precedent and when points raised are of substantial public importance.

Parties: Petitioner: Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others; Respondent: Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 01 May 1989
Procedural Posture: Review Petition / Order on Review Petitions
Outcome: Review petitions allowed; judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 recalled; cases restored and directed to be listed for fresh consideration; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics: Review of Supreme Court Judgment, Excise Duty, Finality of Judgments

Constitutional Law Taxation Law Review of Supreme Court Judgment Excise Duty Finality of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others

Petitioner

Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Petition / Order on Review Petitions

Legal Issues

1 Whether review of the Supreme Court judgment dated December 20, 1986 is permissible due to inconsistency with established law
2 Whether substantial public importance of points raised warrants reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

Review is permissible where there is prima facie inconsistency with the law laid down by Supreme Court precedent and when points raised are of substantial public importance.

Court Disposition

Review petitions allowed; judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 recalled; cases restored and directed to be listed for fresh consideration; no order as to costs.

Orders

Judgment and order dated December 20, 1986 recalled.
Cases restored to their original number and directed to be listed again for fresh consideration.