1996 (5) TMI 88 - SC - Central Excise

Whether any application for rectification of mistake can be heard otherwise than as prescribed under Rule 31A if the President so directs? Held that - The order passed under Rule 31A will have the impact of altering, amending or modifying the final order. We are of the view that a final order passed by a Bench of three Members cannot be modified or altered or amended by a Bench consisting of lesser Members. A Full Bench is superior to a Division Bench and a Division Bench to a single Member Bench. The object for constituting a Division Bench or Full Bench, is the fact that multi-Member tribunals create the opportunity for mature deliberation which improves and enhances individual decision making by adding perspectives and excluding or at least minimising faulty reasoning. Judicial propriety and fairness require, that so long as it is possible and feasible, the same number of Members should constitute the Bench to hear the rectification proceedings as well. It is also prudent and pragmatic and will avoid chaos. In the above perspective, we hold that the majority decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal appealed against, is erroneous in law and so unsustainable. We set aside the orders so passed dated 5-9-1995. The appeals are allowed.

Issues:
1. Constitution of Bench for hearing rectification applications.
2. Interpretation of Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
3. Authority of the President to direct the constitution of a Bench for rectification applications.
4. Impact of rectification order on the final order.
5. Jurisdiction of the President to constitute a Bench with fewer Members than the original Bench.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the constitution of a Bench for hearing rectification applications before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The appellants contested that applications for rectification of mistake should be heard by a Bench consisting of three Members, as the original final order was passed by a Bench of three Members.

2. The interpretation of Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was crucial in this case. The majority of the Tribunal Members relied on Rule 31A, which states that rectification applications should be heard by the same Bench that heard the appeal giving rise to the application, unless directed otherwise by the President. The dissenting Member emphasized that any rectification order would modify the final order, suggesting that rectification proceedings should be heard by a Bench of at least three Members.

3. The authority of the President to direct the constitution of a Bench for rectification applications was a key point of contention. The dissenting Member argued that any alteration in the final order through rectification proceedings necessitates a Bench of at least three Members, aligning with the principle that a Full Bench is superior to a Division Bench.

4. The impact of a rectification order on the final order was debated extensively. The judgment highlighted that a final order passed by a Bench of three Members cannot be amended by a Bench with fewer Members. The importance of maintaining consistency in the number of Members on the Bench for rectification proceedings was emphasized for judicial propriety and fairness.

5. Lastly, the jurisdiction of the President to constitute a Bench with fewer Members than the original Bench for rectification applications was addressed. The Supreme Court held that the President cannot arbitrarily reduce the number of Members on the Bench for rectification proceedings, emphasizing the importance of upholding the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment sheds light on the intricate legal issues surrounding the constitution of Benches for rectification applications and the interpretation of relevant rules governing such proceedings.

← Previous Next →