2014 (3) TMI 794 - AT - Central Excise

Constitution of panel of experts to examine / consult that, whether machinery items supplied have essential characteristic of lift when assembled - various material supplied by the appellant for installation of lift - Held that - In view of the direction of the Hon ble High Court, the matter had to be considered afresh and after hearing the parties, the order has to be passed in accordance with law. Therefore, the question of setting up of any panel would not arise in terms of the order passed by the Hon ble High Court. - Panel of Chartered Engineers appointed, now disassembled - Member(T) recuses himself from case, new Member(T) appointed to preside and matter to be heard finally by Tribunal itself by hearing on two consecutive days - Matter listed for next hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a panel of experts should be constituted to examine the essential characteristics of machinery for installation of a lift.
2. Compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court regarding de novo consideration of the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of whether a panel of experts should be appointed to determine the essential characteristics of machinery for lift installation. Initially, a previous Bench had ordered the constitution of a panel to assess the materials provided by the appellant. However, the Member (Technical) emphasized that the panel should focus on technical aspects, not on deciding the essential characteristics of the machinery as a lift. Following the recusal of the Member (Technical), the matter was transferred to a Bench presided by another Member for fresh consideration.

2. The judgment also addresses the compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court for de novo consideration of the case. The Hon'ble High Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration and to pass an order according to law. In line with this direction, the Tribunal decided that setting up a panel was unnecessary and that the matter should be resolved after hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence on record. Consequently, the Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application and scheduled a two-day continuous hearing to allow elaborate submissions from the counsels representing both sides.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the procedural aspects regarding the constitution of a panel of experts for assessing machinery characteristics and emphasizes the importance of complying with the directives of the higher court for reconsideration of the case. The Tribunal's decision to hear the matter afresh without the need for a panel demonstrates a commitment to thorough examination and adherence to legal procedures.