1993 (8) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of matter between different benches and the requirement for reference to a Larger Bench.
2. President's power to allocate matters to specific benches.
3. Consideration of a preliminary objection regarding the need for a Larger Bench.
4. Request for expedited hearing due to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the transfer of the matter between different benches and the question of whether a reference to a Larger Bench was necessary. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that conflicting views by different benches warranted a reference to a Larger Bench. The appellants contended that such a reference was not required as there was no specific recommendation for it. The President's authority to allocate matters was also discussed, with reference to relevant legal provisions.

2. The Tribunal examined the earlier orders transferring the matter between benches and the President's subsequent order allocating it to a Special Bench. The Tribunal referred to the Customs Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act to determine the President's powers in such matters. It was noted that there was no disagreement among the Members and no recommendation for a reference to a Larger Bench, leading to the rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent.

3. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case to emphasize the President's authority to refer a case to a Larger Bench in case of a difference of opinion among members. The Court highlighted the need for the President to have the power to ensure the correct application of law and efficient functioning of the Tribunal. In this context, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for accepting the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the constitution of a Larger Bench.

4. Additionally, during the proceedings, a request for an expedited hearing was made due to ongoing criminal proceedings against some parties involved in the case. The Tribunal considered this request and adjourned the matter to a specific date, emphasizing that no further adjournments would be granted. This decision aimed to address the concerns raised by the appellants regarding the mental agony caused by the parallel criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues related to the transfer of the matter between benches, the President's power to allocate matters, the preliminary objection regarding the need for a Larger Bench, and the request for an expedited hearing due to ongoing criminal proceedings. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal provisions and relevant case law led to the rejection of the preliminary objection and the scheduling of an expedited hearing to accommodate the parties' concerns.