2015 (10) TMI 673 - HC - Central Excise

Application for direction to the President, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for assigning the matter, which has been referred for decision of the third Member of the Appellate Tribunal, to any of the Members except Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) - Difference of opinion - Held that - On perusal of the points of difference framed at an earlier stage of proceedings as well as points of difference framed for consideration at subsequent stage, we find that there are identical issues. It is also urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a administrative function of the President to assign the matter to the third Member, as provided under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Court cannot cause interference in the matter in exercise of extraordinary powers. In the facts of the case, we refrain from expressing our opinion. However, we leave the matter to the learned President. Appellate Tribunal, for passing appropriate orders. It would be open for the President to reconsider the issue for making reference of the matter to himself or to the another learned Member for hearing and deciding the same. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assignment of matter to a specific member of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Difference of opinion between members of the Tribunal.
3. President's authority to assign matters under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Judicial interference in administrative functions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought directions to assign a matter, which had differences of opinion between two members, to any member except Shri Ashok Jindal. The President had referred the matter to Shri Ashok Jindal, leading to the Commissioner of Central Excise questioning this decision.

2. The Court observed that there were identical issues in the points of difference framed at different stages of the proceedings. The petitioner argued that the assignment of the matter to the third Member was an administrative function of the President under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the matter, stating that it couldn't interfere using extraordinary powers. Instead, the Court left the decision to the President of the Appellate Tribunal, allowing them to reconsider and decide whether to assign the matter to Shri Ashok Jindal or another member for hearing and decision.

4. The Court emphasized that the President had the authority to make the appropriate decision in this regard. The writ petition was disposed of with the Court's observations, leaving the final decision to the President of the Appellate Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of the President's role in assigning matters within the Appellate Tribunal, the issue of differences of opinion between members, and the balance between judicial interference and administrative functions in such matters.