Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others Etc. Etc. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.

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., [1984] I S.C.R. 347. Inasmuch as the cases are being re-opened, 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 E should be maintained and should not be disturbed lightly. In our opi­ nion, the points raised by the petitioners are of substantial public importance, and therefore call for reconsideration. Accordingly, we allow the Review Petitions, and recall the judg- _. + ment and order dated 20 December, 1986 and restore the cases to ,i.; F their original number and direct that they be listed again for fresh consideration. There is no order as to costs. ~ N.P.V Petitions allowed. -