As per the case facts, these appeals involved the tax classification of 'Pan Masala' containing tobacco and gutka. The central issue revolved around the binding authority of judicial precedents from ... benches of different strengths. The appeal to the Supreme Court aimed to resolve which judicial pronouncement should be considered binding. The question arose whether 'Pan Masala' containing tobacco and gutka falls under a specific entry in tax legislation, and more broadly, what constitutes the binding nature of a judgment delivered by a larger quorum bench on a subsequent bench of lesser or coequal strength. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that a decision by a bench of the largest strength is binding on any subsequent bench of lesser or coequal strength. It clarified that the binding nature of a judgment is determined by the strength of the bench, not the number of judges who hold a particular view. A bench with a lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from a legal view established by a larger quorum bench.