1990 (4) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of wooden drums to concession under Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules when cleared with wires/cables wound on them.
2. Validity of proceedings and appeal disposition when the original Bench members are no longer in service.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Wooden Drums to Concession under Rule 56C:
The primary issue was whether wooden drums used by manufacturers of electric wires and cables to wind their products are entitled to the concession under Rule 56C of the Central Excise Rules. The two Members of the Bench differed on this point, with the Member (Technical) opining that the wooden drums were not entitled to the benefit, while the Member (Judicial) believed they were. This difference necessitated a reference to the President of the Tribunal for a decision.

2. Validity of Proceedings and Appeal Disposition:
The proceedings were delayed due to the vacancy in the President's office. Once the office was filled, the matter was listed for hearing. A preliminary objection was raised by the Departmental Representative, arguing that the appeal should be re-heard by a Special Bench because the original Members who heard the appeal had retired. The argument relied on Rule 26 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, which mandates that every order of the Tribunal be signed and dated by the Members constituting the Bench.

Counterarguments and Legal Precedents:
The Counsel for the appellants contended that the original Members had already signed and dated their orders. The President, acting as the Third Member, should decide the point of difference, and the matter should then be transmitted to a Special Bench for final disposal in accordance with the majority opinion. The Counsel argued that the principle of audi alteram partem did not apply at this final stage since there was no need for a de novo hearing on the merits of the case.

Intervener's Submissions:
The Secretary of the CEGAT Bar Association, acting as an intervener, argued that the appeal must be disposed of by the same Members who originally heard it, citing Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act and referencing previous Tribunal decisions. He emphasized that any other approach would be contrary to the legal requirements and would amount to a successor Bench passing an order without having heard the parties.

President's Decision:
The President analyzed the submissions and relevant legal provisions, including Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, which mandates that the point of difference be decided according to the majority opinion of the Members who heard the case, including those who first heard it. The President concluded that the original Members had clearly recorded their opinions and jointly formulated the point of difference, thus leaving no room for changing their opinions.

Legal Precedents and Analogous Situations:
The President referred to various legal precedents, including the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ladhuram Rameshwardayal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and the Supreme Court's judgment in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. These cases established that the final decision should be based on the majority opinion of the Judges who heard the case, even if the Bench's composition changes.

Conclusion:
The President rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Departmental Representative, stating that the successor Bench's role is to ascertain the majority opinion and dispose of the appeal accordingly. The President emphasized that the principles of natural justice did not require a de novo hearing at this stage, and the appeal should be disposed of in the light of the recorded opinions.

Next Steps:
The matter was scheduled for hearing on the point of difference on 5-7-1990 at 10.30 A.M.

← Previous Next →