1986 (12) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Constitution of a Special Bench of 5 Members based on conflicting decisions.
2. Authority of the President of the Tribunal to set aside a judicial order.
3. Conflict in decisions of the Tribunal regarding excise duty assessment.
4. Acceptance of proposals and subsequent actions by the parties.
5. Justification for not referring the matter to a 5 Member Bench.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the appellant's request for a Special Bench of 5 Members due to conflicting decisions. The appeal was transferred to the Bench, and the President's order was sought for constitution of a Special Bench. The history of orders and the necessity for a larger bench were discussed, leading to a detailed examination of conflicting decisions by different Benches of the Tribunal.

2. The President's authority to set aside a judicial order was questioned by the appellant, citing a Division Bench decision. The argument focused on whether the President could administratively override a judicial decision. The judgment analyzed the legal principles regarding such situations and the role of the President in constituting Benches.

3. The conflict in decisions regarding excise duty assessment was highlighted through specific cases. The Tribunal's interpretation of earlier judgments and the application of Supreme Court decisions were scrutinized. The appellant argued for a 5 Member Bench based on these conflicts, emphasizing the need for resolution.

4. The acceptance of proposals and subsequent actions by the parties were crucial in determining the validity of the appellant's request. The judgment pointed out instances where the appellant had accepted dropping the proposal for a 5 Member Bench, indicating a waiver of the request. The parties' conduct during interim hearings was also considered in evaluating the appellant's plea.

5. The justification for not referring the matter to a 5 Member Bench was based on the changed circumstances and the impact of later decisions by higher courts. The judgment emphasized the need to consider the evolving legal landscape and the relevance of recent judgments in determining the necessity for a larger bench. Ultimately, the plea for a Special Bench was rejected, and the appeal was scheduled for a hearing on merits.