Judgment:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J

1. These appeals were placed before a three-Judge Bench because of reference made by a Division Bench with the following order:

"The point involved in this batch of appeals is whether the printing on the package is merely incidental or primary. On this point we find that there are two streams of judgments of this Court. Therefore, keeping in view the conflict of opinion, on the point involved in Rollatrainers Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 293), Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Paper Print & Products Co. (1997 (10) SCC 564) and Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997 (1) SCC 262), we deem it appropriate that these cases be placed for hearing before a larger Bench. Registry is directed to place the matter before Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

2. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General pointed out that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in short ‘CEGAT) disposed of several appeals without detailed analysis of the factual position involved. It merely referred to some judgments and submissions of learned counsel for the assessees who are present respondents to hold that the assessees are entitled to relief. The conclusions are practically non-reasoned and abrupt conclusions were arrived at to hold that printing on media was not merely incidental to its primary use but in fact clearly show the nature of goods contained therein. It is pointed out that five categories were involved. In the case of respondents -Srikumar agencies the article involved was Printed Gay Matter and Printed Agarbathi, in the case of M/s Faxwell Printers the article involved was Printed Gay Wrappers, in the case of M/s Rajhans Enterprises the article involved was Printed Labels, in the case of Sree Vijay Industries, it was Printed Agarbathi Labels and in the case of Regency Printers, it was Printed Labels. The articles were contextually different. It was also submitted that without detailed anaylsis of the factual position mere reliance on the decisions was not the proper way to dispose of the appeals. It is also pointed out that the view expressed by CEGAT even on facts was contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras (JT 1998 (8) SC 527).

3. In response, learned counsel for the respondents-assessees submitted that the CEGAT is the last finding authority. From its varied experience having dealt with large number of cases, even by visual inspection of the materials it was in a position to record a conclusion. It is also submitted that the factual scenario is not different in these cases vis-à-vis those assessees whose cases were the subject matter of the decisions which have been referred to by CEGAT.

4. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed:

"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight