1991 (10) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rules 40 and 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to issue directions to departmental authorities post remand.
- Application of precedents in similar cases to the present matter.

Analysis:

The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a miscellaneous application stemming from the Tribunal's previous orders. The applicants sought the Tribunal's intervention in the re-adjudication proceedings following a remand by the Tribunal. The applicants, represented by Shri R.K. Habbu, argued for the exercise of powers under Rules 40 and 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. They relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court to support their plea, emphasizing limitations on the lower authority's jurisdiction post-remand and the necessity for specific directions to the Collector.

On the other hand, Shri A.K. Singhal, representing the respondents, opposed the acceptance of the miscellaneous application, contending that the facts did not warrant the exercise of powers under Rules 40 and 41. Following arguments from both sides, the Tribunal, comprising S/Shri Harish Chander and S.K. Bhatnagar, considered the prayers made by the applicants in the application. The applicants requested the Tribunal to declare the respondent's notice as legally flawed and to direct the respondent on the method of valuation for assessment, among other directions deemed fit by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal analyzed Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which grant the Tribunal control over departmental authorities and the power to issue necessary directions to prevent abuse of process or ensure justice. Referring to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the Tribunal's inherent powers, the Tribunal noted that it could exercise inherent and ancillary powers for justice. Despite the cited precedent from the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal found the present case to differ in circumstances.

Ultimately, after considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of powers under Rules 40 and 41. Therefore, the miscellaneous application was dismissed, denying the applicants' request for the Tribunal's intervention in the ongoing adjudication proceedings post-remand.