9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1303 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2006 - A.P. Shah, C.J. and K. Chandru, J. Shri K. Jayachandran, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: A.P. Shah, C.J.] - The appellant is a partnership firm. The respondents clubbed all the three units of the firm assuming that two of the three were dummy units of the appellant and a common show cause notice was issued proposing to demand differential duty and penalty from the appellant by clubbing the value of clearances of all the three units. According to the appellant, there was no evidence to show that the three units are managed by one and there is no reason for clubbing. The appellant preferred an appeal and the matter was heard by the first respondent consisting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the majority, if there is a majority; but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members of the Appellate Tribunal and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of these members of the Appellate Tribunal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it." 3. The learned single Judge, following the decision of this Court in State by Public Prosecutor v:. Arumugham and 12 others [1989 L.W. (Criminal) 519], the decision of a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion, the third Member, to whom the matter was referred, happened to form part of the two Member Bench. This circumstance cannot change the fact that the Bench which pronounced the order based on the majority opinion is the successor Bench. 13. There was no necessity for the Member (Judicial), who formed part of the two Member Bench, to hear the matter. The point on which the Honourable Member and the Honourable Vice-President forming the two Member Bench had differed had to be heard only by a third Member, who had heard it and the majority opinion was pronounced on the basis of how the point was decided by the majority. It is not necessary for the matter to be heard again by another Bench merely because the two Members who had originall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
