1996 (9) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the present Bench to hear the matter in reference application.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference application filed by the department concerning an order of the Tribunal. The initial question raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the present Bench to hear the matter. Both sides referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Elpro Intt. Ltd., highlighting that the same Bench that heard the appeal giving rise to the application should typically hear the reference application as well. This principle is derived from Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, which mandates that the same Bench should handle applications for rectification of mistakes. The Tribunal considers Reference Applications under Rule 31 of the same Rules, which also directs that the same Bench which heard the appeal should hear the reference application unless directed otherwise by the President.

The Supreme Court judgment in the Elpro Intt. Ltd. case emphasized that the application should be heard by the same Members who passed the final order, unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. The judgment clarified that if subsequent events or changes make it impossible for the original Members to hear the application, the President can direct that a different Bench handle the matter. In this context, it was noted that when a Member or Members are available, the application should typically be heard by the same Members who issued the final order. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the Elpro Intt. Ltd. case is applicable to reference applications as well.

In a specific case mentioned in the judgment, it was observed that the matter should have been listed before the Member who passed the final order and was available, in line with the Supreme Court's directive. Consequently, the Registry was directed to list the matter before the relevant Member. Additionally, the Court Master highlighted instances where cases were not listed before the appropriate Bench despite orders, leading to a directive for the Registrar to ensure strict adherence to the Supreme Court judgment in the future.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of following the prescribed procedures and ensuring that reference applications are heard by the same Bench that handled the original appeal, as per the relevant rules and the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in the Elpro Intt. Ltd. case.