2007 (3) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Difference of opinion among the members of the Tribunal on allowing the appeal on limitation.
2. Error in the Tribunal's order regarding the entire matter being set aside on the point of limitation.

Analysis:

1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a difference of opinion among the members regarding the appeal's allowance on limitation. The majority Order No. A-295/WZB/2004/C-III allowed the assessee's appeal on limitation, while the order passed by the Member (Technical) disallowed the appeal on both merits and limitation. However, the Member (Judicial) disagreed with the technical member's order and allowed the appeal solely on the point of limitation. The Member (Judicial) explicitly stated that due to the appeal being allowed on a time-barred basis, no views were expressed on the merits of the case. This difference of opinion was resolved by a third member concurring with the views of the Member (Judicial), leading to the appeal being allowed on the point of time-bar.

2. It was noted that a portion of the demand fell within the time limit, which was acknowledged by Shri Prakash Shah, the advocate for the respondent. Consequently, it was recognized that there was an error in the Tribunal's order as the entire matter had been set aside based on the point of limitation. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Review of Order (ROM) to the extent that the matter needed to be decided on its merits for the period falling within the limitation. The case was directed to be listed before the Member (Judicial) who was part of the original Bench that decided the matter, ensuring a reevaluation of the case within the correct legal framework.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the intricacies of the difference of opinion among the Tribunal members and the subsequent correction made regarding the error in setting aside the entire matter on the point of limitation.