1995 (6) TMI 117 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of order sought by the appellants based on the Tribunal's decision.
2. Appellants' plea for reference to the Larger Bench due to a similar matter.
3. Allegation of error in passing an order on merits without considering the declaration for the year 1989-90.
4. Examination of whether the Tribunal should have proceeded to pronounce on the merits of the issue despite a previous reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis:

1. The appellants sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that a similar matter had been referred to a Larger Bench previously. They contended that their appeal should also have been referred to the Larger Bench instead of a decision on the merits. The Tribunal considered the plea but noted that the earlier reference was not brought to their attention during the proceedings. The Tribunal held that passing an order on the issue, even if referred to a Larger Bench in another case, does not legally preclude them from deciding on the merits. The appellants were informed that they could challenge the order through appropriate legal channels. Ultimately, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.

2. The appellants raised a plea for reference to the Larger Bench based on a similar matter involving Wilson & Company. They argued that their appeal should have been treated similarly. However, the Tribunal found that the earlier reference was not highlighted during the proceedings. It was clarified that there is no automatic right for a matter to be heard by a Larger Bench, and such a reference does not prevent the Bench from deciding on the merits in another case. The Tribunal emphasized that the order can be challenged through legal avenues if necessary.

3. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in passing an order on merits without considering the declaration filed for the year 1989-90. They argued that if the declaration for 1989-90 had been taken into account, the demand for the preceding period would have been time-barred. However, upon examination, it was found that the Consultant representing the appellants did not raise this specific point during the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error on the record regarding this issue.

4. The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether they should have proceeded to pronounce on the merits of the case despite a previous reference to a Larger Bench in a different matter. It was clarified that the earlier reference was not brought to their attention during the proceedings, and there was no plea that the order passed on merits contradicted any previous observations. The Tribunal stated that there is no inherent right for an appellant to have a matter heard by a Larger Bench, and such a reference does not prevent the Bench from deciding on the merits in another case. As a result, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision on the issue stood.