2013 (4) TMI 130 - HC - Central Excise

Whether Tribunal has the power to review its own order based on subsequent change in law - Whether the impugned order could have been passed by the ld. Tribunal without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant? - Held that - If the Tribunal does not refer the questions of law for the opinion of this Court, the aggrieved party could invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 35-H of the Act. It was in these terms, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the Revenue against the order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the Tribunal. The opinion rendered by the High Court, on such reference sought by the Revenue, is binding on the authorities under the Act. The Tribunal is to give effect to the order passed by this Court. We find that the appellant has sought to confuse the provisions then existing and after amendment with effect from 14.5.2003 substituting Section 35 G by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2003 - Consequently, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35-C(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
2. Power of the Tribunal to review its own order based on a subsequent change in law
3. Violation of the principle of natural justice by the Tribunal

Interpretation of Section 35-C(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal, arguing that it is final under Section 35-C(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, except as provided under Sections 35-G or 35-L. The appellant contended that the order passed by the Tribunal was under Section 35-H, thus not protected. However, the Court held that the argument was misconceived. The Court emphasized that when the Tribunal passed the order in 2000, the Revenue's only remedy was to seek a reference under Section 35-G. The Court clarified that the High Court's opinion, sought by the Revenue through reference, is binding on the authorities under the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the High Court's order. The Court noted that the appellant attempted to confuse the provisions pre-amendment and post-amendment, highlighting the substitution of Section 35-G by Section 144 of the Finance Act, 2003. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal and dismissed it.

Power of the Tribunal to review its own order based on a subsequent change in law:
The Tribunal passed an order on a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue after the decision of the reference by the Court. The Tribunal allowed the application and scheduled the appeal for final disposal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order was leading to a review of the earlier order. However, the Court clarified that the Tribunal's function was to give effect to the High Court's order following a reference sought by the Revenue, which is binding on the authorities under the Act. The Court emphasized that the appellant's argument was misconceived, as the Tribunal's role was to comply with the High Court's opinion, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal.

Violation of the principle of natural justice by the Tribunal:
The appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal's order, alleging that it violated the principle of natural justice by not affording any opportunity of hearing. However, the Court did not delve into this issue as it found no substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal, indicating that the Tribunal's order was in line with the legal provisions and did not warrant interference.