Judgment:
1. Common questions arise for consideration in these appeals. We have therefore heard them together.
2. The appellant is manufacturer of Optical Whitening Agent under the brand name "Ranipol". Appeals relate to 7 price lists filed by the appellants indicating price for 50 Kg., 25 Kg. pack and less than 25 Kg. pack. The price was expressed per Kg. Price lists also indicated that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 100/66, dated 17-6-1966. The appellant took the stand that duty payable on less than 25 Kg. packs would not include duty on the element of packing. This interpretation of the notification was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeals.
3. We have no hesitation to state that the language of the notification is not free from doubt. We do not propose to go deeper into the same since we are of opinion that the matter should be considered afresh by the Collector (Appeals). Appellant placed before the Collector (Appeals) an order passed by the Govt. of India, erstwhile revisionary authority as well as a letter dated, 9-10-1973 of the Ministry. The Collector brushed aside these documents on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal or Govt. of India in their quasi-judicial capacity is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem and, therefore, not binding on the statutory authorities. We find ourselves unable to agree with this view taken by the Collector (Appeals). If the Tribunal or its predecessor, Govt. of India, had arrived at a decision on a particular understanding of law or principles of law, that understanding of law or principles of law would have to be followed by statutory authorities. A decision on facts in a given case cannot, of course, be followed by statutory authorities in another case but this cannot apply to a decision on a principle of law. In this view, the matter has to be considered de novo by the Collector (Appeals).
4. We may also indicate that Shri Satnam Singh, SDR expressed doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the copy of the letter dated 9-10-1973 produced by the appellant. If the Collector (Appeals) entertains any doubt on this score, he may obtain authoritative copy from the Ministry itself. According to the learned Counsel of the appellant, decision of the Govt. of India as well as the Ministry's clarification are to the effect that in the duty payable on less than 25 Kg. pack, duty element on container is not to be included. The Collector (Appeals) will have to examine whether this is the meaning and content of the Govt. of India's decision and the Ministry's letter.
If that is the meaning of the clarification or decision, the dispute raised by the appellant will have to be decided in the light of such clarification. If the content and meaning of the decision or the letter are contrary to what the appellant is canvassing naturally, the Collector (Appeals) will not accept the appellant's contention.
5. The impugned common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the cases are remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) for decision afresh after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order.