9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench for decision on the issue of the appellant being a hospital within the meaning of Notification No. 64/88? Analysis: The Commissioner filed an application under Section 129 E for the recall of a miscellaneous order that referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for constituting a larger bench. The Commissioner argued that the issue of whether the appellant is a hospital within the notification's meaning needed to be decided. The Commissioner cited judgments, including one from the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Hospital. The learned SDR opposed the recall, stating that the matter had been decided by the Apex Court, AP High Court, and the Larger Bench. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal had inherent powers to refer issues to a Larger Bench when important questions were raised or when there were conflicting orders. He highlighted the question of law regarding duty recovery when a notification is rescinded, citing Apex Court judgments that demands cannot be confirmed after rescission. The learned SDR argued against the reference, stating that all questions had been decided by higher courts and the larger bench. He believed that the appeal should have been dismissed based on the citations provided. Upon careful consideration, the bench noted that the learned SDR did not challenge the Tribunal's power to refer questions to a larger bench. They clarified that Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act does not apply when a final order has not been passed. The bench deemed the Commissioner's invocation of this section as mis-conceived. They found no merit in the application for recall, stating that the reference to a larger bench was lawful. Consequently, the miscellaneous application was dismissed, and the file was directed to be forwarded to the Registry of New Delhi for the constitution of the Larger Bench. This judgment highlights the process of referring matters to a larger bench, the Tribunal's inherent powers, and the considerations involved in deciding whether to recall an order for reference. The legal principles regarding notification interpretation and duty recovery after rescission were also discussed, emphasizing the importance of following precedents set by higher courts.
|
