2004 (7) TMI 97 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction for reference under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Exemption from excise duty on bottom work platform.
3. Recalling of the Tribunal's order dated 6-4-1999.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to re-call the ex parte order.
5. Hearing on merits and justification for re-call of the order.
6. Application of Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis:

1. The petition sought a direction for reference under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding whether the Tribunal could re-call its order dated 6-4-1999 passed on merits.

2. The respondents claimed exemption from excise duty on bottom work platform for a weigh bridge, contending it was necessary equipment for manufacturing operations. Initially upheld by the Asstt. Collector, the claim was later disallowed on review. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed, stating the platform was not capital goods, components, or raw material for export items.

3. The respondents, not represented during the order's passing, filed an application as the notice was not received timely due to their consultant's demise. The Tribunal allowed this application and re-called the ex parte order, leading to the petitioner filing an application for re-call of the rehearing order.

4. The Tribunal, citing Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, and a judgment of the Apex Court, held that it had jurisdiction to re-call the ex parte order.

5. The High Court noted that the Tribunal was satisfied with the non-appearance of the respondents during the appeal decision due to reasons beyond their control. Considering the justification for re-calling the order to afford a hearing to the respondents on merits, the Court found no prejudice to the petitioner. Referring to a judgment, it emphasized the power of the Tribunal to set aside an ex parte order for the ends of justice.

6. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's order, as it was in line with the principles of justice and the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Rule 41.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Court's reasoning in reaching its decision.