9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 834, wherein the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Gunturv.M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., 1989 (39) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.) = 1988 (19) ECR 17 (Tribunal), was not followed in view of the Bombay High Court's judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Glindia Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (36) E.L.T. 479 (Bombay), whereas it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Shri C.S. Lodha, that there are conflicting decisions on the said issue and the following cases were neither cited nor considered by the Tribunal while deciding the case of M/s. Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd., (supra) - (1) Collector v. Parle Exports, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741 (SC); (2) Kaira District Co-op Milk Producer's Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 186 (Bom.) = 1988 (16) ECR 405 (Bom.); (3) The Modem Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 639 (New Delhi); (4) Godrej Soaps Pvt. Ltd. v. A.K. Bandyopadhyay, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 555 (Bom.); (5) Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal); (6) Sajith Topioca Allied Products v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 99 (Tribunal); (7) Bakul Cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because an appeal is pending against the Order of the Tribunal in the Apex Court involving the identical issue. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case are peculiar in themselves. In the instant case, the respondents are heavily relying upon the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the said case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., [1989 (39) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.) = 1988 (19) ECR 17 (CEGAT) supra, adding that while deciding the case ofM/s. Schokhi Industrials Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, [1991 (55) E.L.T. 552 (Tri.) = 1991 (17) ETR 834 (Trib.)] supra, the cases cited at the Bar in the present case were not considered. Therefore, the ratio of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., supra, holds the field. It is just to resolve the conflict, particularly with reference to the case of Mis. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., supra, that the present Larger Bench has been constituted and after hearing both sides this Bench has to take a view as to whether the case of M/s. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills & Fertilizers Co., supra, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3020 to 3027/87-D) a difference of opinion has arisen on the point of reference to larger bench and a Third Member is constituted to answer the difference of opinion. By adjourning this matter sine die, the effect would be that all pending appeals on this issue have to be adjourned sine die till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the case which is not likely to be done in the near future as the appeal is of 1989. By so doing, the very purpose of constituting a larger bench would be defeated if the bench is to adjourn the case sine die to await for the final outcome from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In every case before a Larger Bench, one decided case or the other would be before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that could not be the sole reason for adjourning the matter sine die. Such a stand will not be in the spirit of constituting larger benches and also not in temperance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as decided in the case of U.O.I. & Another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) = 1990 (30) ECR 305. The relevant paragraphs 6 to 12 are noted below - 6. "The Tribunal is constituted by the Central Government under Section 129 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. As stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (Eleventh Edition) "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. 9. It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. This is particularly true when the earlier decision is rendered by a larger Bench. The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affected by decisions of Tribunals or Courts have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant authorising the President to constitute Benches of the Tribunal for effective and expeditious discharge of its functions. 12. In our view, the Bench of two members acted within their power in stating the points of law which required clarification and the President acted equally within the bounds of his power in constituting a larger bench to hear and decide those points." 9. Therefore, when a larger Bench is constituted by the Hon'ble President to set at rest any judicial inconsistency, the Larger Bench should be duty bound to proceed to hear the matter and reply to the reference. It would be outside the pale of the larger bench to adjourn the matter sine die, as it would not meet the ends of justice in settling the controversy. Further I would like to mention that in several cases, a plea is made that the decision of the larger bench or that of a regular bench is pending consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court and on this plea, an adjournment is sought, but this Tribunal has not considered such requests - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill v. Hico Products Ltd. [1990 (50) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.) = 1990 (29) ECC 292]. Therefore, I order for hearing the Reference without ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
