2014 (9) TMI 646 - AT - Service Tax

Referring a matter to larger bench - Rectification of mistake - guidelines laid-down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Pradip Chandra Parija and Others vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Others 2001 (12) TMI 71 - SUPREME Court and various other decisions - Held that - The misc. order dated 09.09.2013 had not per se referred the noticed conflict for resolution by a Larger Bench of five Members. It merely recorded an opinion that there was an extant conflict between three Member Bench decisions and such conflict requires resolution by a five Members Bench. This order directed that the papers be placed before the President, CESTAT, for appropriate orders; after clearly recording the issue on which conflict of opinion existed. It is clear that the 09.09.2013 order expressly and clearly identified the specific issue presenting the conflict and had referred the matter to the President, CESTAT, after recommending that an appropriate case is made out for reference to a Larger Bench. Misc. order dated 05.05.2014 reframed the issues to be considered the larger bench of five Members. The core issue to be considered for resolution by the five Members Larger Bench was already identified and specified in Misc. order dated 09.09.2013. The order dated 05.05.2014 merely annotated integers of the issue referred for resolution by the Larger Bench while indicating the probable date for consideration of the Larger Bench i.e. around 09.06.2014; and directed that notices be put up on notice boards of advocates associations at all Regional Benches, so as to afford opportunity to other Members of the Bar, to assist the Larger Bench in answering the identified conflict. The basis for the present applications (seeking review of the misc. applications dated 09.09.2013 and 05.05.2014) is ex-facie misconceived and proceeds on a basic incomprehension of these orders. The CST, New Delhi erroneously assumes that the order dated 09.09.2013 disagreed with the ratio of the Larger Bench in BSBK Pvt. Limited. Clearly, that is not the position. The issues referred to the larger Bench (of five members) essentially involve critical analyses of several precedents, deep principles of constitutional law, elucidation of allocation of legislative powers in our federal context, interpretation of statutes and unraveling of the meaning of evolving statutory prescriptions in an acutely dynamic legislation - The Finance Act, 1994. In our considered view, such issues are better handled by professional counsel, than AR s. The CBEC/ Finance Ministry may consider this aspect, as well. - Misc. application dismissed - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Early hearing of miscellaneous applications.
2. Liberty to intervene in proceedings before a Larger Bench.
3. Rectification of mistake in an order.
4. Reframing issues for consideration by a Larger Bench.
5. Misconception of facts and law by the applicant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Early Hearing of Miscellaneous Applications:
The Revenue sought an early hearing of Miscellaneous Application Nos. 51246 and 53283 of 2014 through Miscellaneous Application No. 53282 of 2014. Since these applications were disposed of on the current date, the request for early hearing was dismissed as infructuous.

2. Liberty to Intervene in Proceedings Before a Larger Bench:
Miscellaneous Application No. 53284 of 2014 was filed by M/s Sepco Electric Power Corporation, seeking to intervene in the appeal No. ST/136/2007, pending adjudication. The application argued that the issues in their case were substantially similar to those referred to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal granted liberty to M/s Sepco Electric Power Corporation to intervene and make submissions before the Larger Bench.

3. Rectification of Mistake in an Order:
Miscellaneous Application No. 51246 of 2014 was filed by Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi, seeking rectification of the order dated 09.09.2013. The application argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding the matter of the appellant L&T on the issue of vivisection of composite contracts and referring it to a Larger Bench without expressing doubt along with reasons regarding the correctness of the Larger Bench decision in BSBK Pvt. Limited. The Tribunal found the application to be based on misconceptions and dismissed it.

4. Reframing Issues for Consideration by a Larger Bench:
Miscellaneous Application No. 53283 of 2014 was also filed by the CST, New Delhi, seeking rectification of the order dated 05.05.2014, which reframed issues for consideration by the Larger Bench. The Tribunal reiterated the necessity of resolving the conflict between different Larger Bench decisions and upheld the reframing of issues, dismissing the application.

5. Misconception of Facts and Law by the Applicant:
The Tribunal observed that the applications filed by CST, New Delhi, were based on fundamental misconceptions of facts and law, leading to unnecessary waste of judicial time. It emphasized that the order dated 09.09.2013 did not decide the appeal but merely referred the matter to the President, CESTAT, for an appropriate decision. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of resolving conflicts between precedents for doctrinal stability and dismissed the applications with costs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 51246 and 53283 of 2014, emphasizing the need for proper understanding of legal principles and procedures by the applicants. The Tribunal directed the Secretary, Revenue, and the Chairperson, CBEC, to take note of the deficiencies in Revenue representation and consider involving professional counsel for handling complex legal issues. The applications were dismissed with costs of Rs. 2500, to be remitted to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks.