1997 (1) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of an error apparent in questions framed by two members of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Relevance of mentioning Notification No. 116/79-Cus., dated 1-6-1979 in the questions framed.
3. Interpretation of Section 129B of the Customs Act regarding rectification of mistakes in orders.
4. Authority and limitations of the Third Member in resolving differences of opinion between members of the Tribunal.
5. Comparison of provisions in the Customs Act, Income Tax Act, and CPC regarding references to a Third Member in case of disputes between members.
6. Judicial precedents on the necessity and clarity of differences in opinions when making references to a Third Member.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involves an application for rectification of an error apparent in the questions framed by two members of the Appellate Tribunal. The issue raised is the relevance of mentioning Notification No. 116/79-Cus., dated 1-6-1979 in the questions framed. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the reference to this notification was redundant and not relevant to the original issue before the Bench. However, the Tribunal found that the application for rectification of mistake had no validity as the reference made to the Third Member did not constitute an order under Section 129B of the Customs Act unless the Third Member agrees with one of the referring members.

The Tribunal also discussed the authority and limitations of the Third Member in resolving differences of opinion between members of the Tribunal. It was emphasized that the Third Member's powers are limited, and they must agree with either the Member (Judicial) or Member (Technical). Judicial precedents were cited to support this view, highlighting the importance of the Third Member hearing the points on which the original Bench differed and deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, the judgment delves into the comparison of provisions in the Customs Act, Income Tax Act, and CPC regarding references to a Third Member in case of disputes between members. The Tribunal noted the similarity in these provisions and referred to relevant judgments to establish the necessity and clarity required in expressing differences of opinion when making references to a Third Member.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the questions framed by the original Bench were clear and correct, directing the registry to place the papers before the Third Member for decision. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and the procedural aspects involved in rectifying errors and resolving differences of opinion within the Appellate Tribunal.