2003 (3) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the failure to cite a case law before the Tribunal constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
2. Whether a subsequent judgment by a superior forum can be used to claim a mistake in a prior decision.
3. Whether a Tribunal in Mumbai is bound by the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court or by a decision of a Larger Bench of the Tribunal.

Issue 1 - Failure to cite case law:
The Division Bench referred questions to a Larger Bench regarding the significance of not citing a case law before the Tribunal. The Larger Bench had previously ruled that the non-reference to an existing judgment and failure to rely on it do not justify rectification of an order. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly. The Majority view emphasized that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a valid ground for reviewing a prior judgment for an error apparent on the face of the record. Various decisions cited by the appellants were not rendered by the Apex Court, leading to the conclusion that there was no need to doubt the reasoning of the five-Member Bench based on the Supreme Court's dictum.

Issue 2 - Subsequent judgment by a superior forum:
The judgment highlighted that a subsequent decision of the Tribunal or a Court does not warrant rectification of an order. The Larger Bench's decision in Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Vadodara, supported this stance. It was established that a later judgment by a superior forum does not automatically allow for the plea of mistake to be raised in relation to a prior decision. The legal principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly.

Issue 3 - Conflict between Tribunal and High Court decisions:
Regarding the conflict between the law laid down by a High Court and a decision of the Tribunal, it was determined that the High Court decision prevails over the Tribunal decision in normal circumstances. The judgment clarified that if a Tribunal decision is based on the ratio of a Supreme Court decision, a conflict arises between the Apex Court and the High Court decisions. In such cases, the decision of the Apex Court prevails as per Article 141 of the Constitution.

The judgment addressed the issues raised by the Division Bench and provided clarity on the significance of citing case law, the impact of subsequent judgments by superior forums, and the hierarchy of decisions between High Courts and Tribunals. The matter was referred back to the West Regional Division Bench for appropriate orders on the applications.