2010 (4) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal - application for recall of the order - stay application in appeal was wrongly placed before Single Member instead of Division Bench - order passed by the Single Member is without jurisdiction - Held that - matter was placed before Hon ble Single Member merely because the amount involved was less than Rs. 10 lakhs - application is allowed and the stay order is recalled and the stay application is restored

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Single Member in interpreting exemption Notification.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Single Member.
3. Recall of the stay order and restoration of the stay application for fresh hearing.

Jurisdiction of the Single Member in interpreting exemption Notification:
The application before the Tribunal sought a recall of the order dated 13-9-2007 and the vacation of the stay order, arguing that the matter involved the interpretation of an exemption Notification and, therefore, should have been dealt with by a Division Bench instead of a Single Member. The records indicated that the matter pertained to the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002. Section 35D(3) was referred to, which outlined the circumstances under which a Single Member could dispose of a case. It was observed that the matter was incorrectly placed before the Single Member due to the amount involved being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, without a specific order from the President allotting the matter to the Single Member. Consequently, the order passed by the Single Member was deemed to be without jurisdiction, and the stay application was to be restored for fresh hearing before the appropriate authority.

Validity of the order passed by the Single Member:
The Tribunal found that the order dated 13-9-2007 in Stay Application No. 1843/2007 was incorrectly decided by the Single Member due to the lack of jurisdiction. It was noted that the matter was not specifically assigned to the Single Member by the President, and as such, the Single Member did not have the authority to hear and decide on the case either on merits or for interim relief. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Single Member needed to be recalled, and the stay application was to be restored for a fresh hearing before the appropriate authority. The records confirmed that the stay application was to be fixed for hearing on 21-6-2010, following the recall of the stay order dated 13-9-2007.

Recall of the stay order and restoration of the stay application for fresh hearing:
In light of the jurisdictional issue and the incorrect placement of the matter before the Single Member, the Tribunal allowed the application for the recall of the stay order dated 13-9-2007. The Tribunal directed the restoration of the stay application for fresh hearing before the Division Bench, as the matter involved the interpretation of an exemption Notification, which fell within the jurisdiction of a Division Bench rather than a Single Member. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper allocation of cases based on the relevant legal provisions and ordered the stay application to be fixed for a fresh hearing to ensure appropriate adjudication of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, regarding the jurisdictional aspects and the validity of the order passed by the Single Member, culminating in the recall of the stay order and the restoration of the stay application for a fresh hearing before the appropriate authority.