9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Difference of opinion between Hon'ble Vice-President and Hon'ble Member (Technical) leading to a stalemate, lack of framing of issues/points for determination, application for rectification of mistake, jurisdiction of the Third Member, maintainability of the application, power of the Tribunal to do procedural justice.
Summary: The matter before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai arose from a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a writ petition, directing the regular Bench to dispose of an application filed by the appellant. The application sought to address the difference of opinion between the Hon'ble Vice-President and the Hon'ble Member (Technical) on an appeal. The High Court emphasized the need for framing points for determination in appeals and answering them. It held that the Tribunal could rectify mistakes even after passing dissenting orders and had the power to ensure procedural justice. The appellant urged that all points raised before the High Court be addressed, emphasizing the importance of correctly framing and deciding upon issues to avoid differences of opinion. The Tribunal acknowledged the High Court's directive to frame issues and proceed with the appeal after personal hearing. Due to the retirement of one member and the absence of another from the original Bench, a Division Bench was tasked with rehearing the case and disposing of the appeal in accordance with the law and the High Court's judgment. The High Court's judgment highlighted the Tribunal's inherent power to ensure procedural justice, which was unanimously accepted. Consequently, the application was allowed for the reopening of the hearing. The appropriate Bench was directed to frame issues/points for determination and make decisions accordingly, with a speaking order to be eventually passed. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on a specified date to proceed with the re-hearing process.
|
