1998 (1) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Obligation of the Department to cite reference to orders relied upon.
2. Binding nature of decisions given by a collateral Bench.
3. Requirement to refer a matter to a Larger Bench if there is a difference in views.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner filed a Reference Application to the Delhi High Court questioning the obligation of the Department to cite references to orders relied upon. The Tribunal rejected an ROM application by the CCE, New Delhi against a previous Final Order, where the Department's appeal was dismissed. The Commissioner argued that a prior Final Order involving the same party upheld the Department's appeal on a similar issue, indicating that the benefit under Rule 57F(3) would not be available to the party. However, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application as the Appellant Collector failed to reference any earlier Tribunal decision, leading to no apparent mistake on record.

2. The Commissioner contended that decisions by a collateral Bench should be binding on subsequent matters. The Commissioner argued that if a Bench disagreed with a prior Bench order, the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench. The Commissioner highlighted that it was not permissible for a Bench to reject an ROM application merely because the earlier decision was not brought to its notice. However, the Tribunal cited precedents where the failure to cite relevant case law during the hearing did not warrant a reference to the High Court.

3. The Tribunal referred to past cases where the failure to follow an earlier order not cited during the hearing did not give rise to a question of law for reference. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to follow an earlier decision existed regardless of whether it was brought to the Bench's notice. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the question of whether there is an obligation on the Department to cite references is not a question of law. It reiterated that applicants must cite relevant authorities, and the judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not obligated to search for case law if none is presented.

In conclusion, the Reference Application was rejected by the Tribunal as no question of law arose in the case. The Tribunal emphasized the well-settled principle that applicants must cite relevant authorities, and the failure to do so does not create an obligation on the judicial or quasi-judicial authority to search for relevant case law.