9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are reproduced below :- In view of difference of opinion, the following questions arise for determination by Third Member on reference, by Hon ble President. Whether the appellants are entitled for registration of contract under Project Import Regulations, and entitled for the benefit of concessional rate under Customs Heading 84.66 and the benefit of Notification No. 116/79-Cus., dated 1-6-1979 as held by Member (Judicial) (Shri S. L. Peeran). or The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Project Import and to the benefit of the Notification as held by Member (Technical) (Shri J.H. Joglekar)." 2. It has been claimed by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants that the reference to Notification No. 116/79-Cus., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to have granted the benefit under the said Notification. The learned Member has taken a view taking into account this Notification as also other provisions of law discussed in his order. It is not for the parties in dispute to comment upon the relevance or otherwise of any provisions of law discussed in an order made by the member of the Tribunal. That right can be exercised only by an authority sitting in appeal over the order passed by the member, where such a point is contested before the Appellate Authority. In fact, even that Member to whom the reference is made, is not empowered to (sic) framed the questioned reference. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Jainsons Clothing Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Letter Patent of the Court, the Hon ble High Court held that :- That the judges should record expressly in a joint order what their differences are, may be desirable. But here is no imperative prescription that difference of opinion has to be formulated by a joint order. If such difference or differences is expressly enumerated in a joint order, it may serve better and the Third Judge hearing the appeal may not be required to investigate into their respective judgments to discover the difference or differences of opinion. Still absence of a joint order specifying the difference as envisaged under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the Court cannot be taken to vitiate the reference on the hearing of the appeal by a Third M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
