2001 (11) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the opinion given by the Member (Judicial) in Appeal No. E/2372/94-A.
2. Maintainability of the ROM application against an opinion by a Member.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules to rectify mistakes.
4. Justification for entertaining the ROM application under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
5. Final decision on the maintainability of the ROM application.

Issue 1: Rectification of mistakes in the opinion:
The Revenue filed an application seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the opinion given by the Member (Judicial) in Appeal No. E/2372/94-A. Due to a difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical), the matter was referred to the President for a Third Member hearing. The ROM application specifically targeted paragraphs 16 to 19 of the Member (Judicial)'s order, requesting their deletion before the final hearing.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the ROM application:
A preliminary objection was raised by the appellants' counsel, arguing that the ROM application was not maintainable as it was directed against an opinion by a Member, rather than a final order. Citing legal precedents, the counsel contended that ROM applications are typically applicable to final orders. In response, the Revenue's counsel invoked Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, asserting the Tribunal's jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in the interest of justice, supported by relevant case law.

Issue 3: Tribunal's jurisdiction under Rule 41:
While acknowledging the Tribunal's inherent power to correct orders under Rule 41, the Tribunal expressed concerns about the applicability of this rule in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that the ROM application sought the deletion of specific paragraphs from the Member (Judicial)'s opinion, which could be challenged during the full hearing before the Larger Bench. The Tribunal highlighted that all contentions could be presented during the hearing, rendering a separate consideration of the ROM unnecessary.

Issue 4: Justification for entertaining the ROM application:
The Tribunal deliberated on whether the ROM application justified invoking Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. It concluded that since the deletion of paragraphs 16 to 19 would not impact the issues before the Bench, hearing the contentions during the appeal would suffice. The Tribunal determined that no injustice would be caused to the applicant by not separately considering the ROM application under Rule 41.

Issue 5: Final decision on the maintainability of the ROM application:
After thorough consideration, the Tribunal held that the ROM application was not maintainable under Section 35C(2) and deemed it unnecessary to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Consequently, the ROM application was dismissed, and the Tribunal decided to provide a copy of the order "DASTI" to the concerned parties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the rectification of mistakes in the Member (Judicial)'s opinion, the maintainability of the ROM application, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Rule 41, the justification for entertaining the ROM application, and the final decision on the application's maintainability.

← Previous Next →