2005 (10) TMI 101 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Jurisdiction of the Third Member of CESTAT.
3. Validity of the order dated 10-10-2005.
4. Availability of Section 129B(2) for rectification application.
5. Disposal of the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion.

Analysis:

1. The petition before the High Court involved a dispute where the Division Bench of CESTAT could not agree on the appeals, leading to a reference to the President of CESTAT as per Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Third Member was assigned to hear the point of disagreement. The High Court clarified that the Third Member's jurisdiction was limited to deciding the specific point or points of difference and could not exceed this mandate. The appeal had to be disposed of based on the majority opinion of the original Bench.

2. The High Court found that the Third Member had overstepped their authority by deciding on matters beyond the specific point of disagreement referred to them. The Court emphasized that the Third Member's role was restricted to addressing the identified disagreement and could not entertain other issues or assume additional jurisdiction. Consequently, the order dated 10-10-2005 by the Third Member was deemed invalid and set aside.

3. Regarding the availability of Section 129B(2) for rectification applications, the High Court ruled that in the absence of an order by the original Bench, the petitioner was not entitled to move for rectification. The Court highlighted that the Third Member's jurisdiction was limited to the assigned point of disagreement and could not entertain rectification applications during the appeal process.

4. The High Court rejected the petitioner's argument that no further proceedings could occur until the rectification application was decided. The Court clarified that the Third Member's authority was confined to the specific point of disagreement and did not extend to other matters. As a result, the Third Member's decision on the rectification application during the appeal process was deemed improper.

5. In conclusion, the High Court quashed the order dated 10-10-2005 by the Third Member, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the Third Member in addressing only the specific points of disagreement referred to them. The Court upheld the requirement for the appeal to be disposed of based on the majority opinion of the original Bench, maintaining the integrity of the appeal process under the Customs Act, 1962.