9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that the same "cannot be entertained at this stage as it is premature and therefore not maintainable". The respondents also filed miscellaneous application Nos. C/10132-10135/2016 seeking interim relief under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. The Registry listed these miscellaneous applications before the Single Member Bench and the matter was taken up and interim order No. I.O./120-123/2016 dated 21.3.2016 came to be passed. Revenue is aggrieved by the said interim order and hence the present applications. 3. Heard both sides. Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Ld. Special Counsel appeared for Revenue and argued the matter extensively on various dates. He also filed written submissions and case laws. Shri Vikram Nankani, Ld. Senior Advocate appeared for the Respondents and argued extensively on the matter and filed written submissions and case laws. Shri P.R.V. Ramanan also filed rejoinder dated 29.08.2016. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and examined the records, written submissions and case laws. The short question involved in the present miscellaneous applications is, whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed, stayed or suspended. It is observed on a perusal of the said Special Civil Application (Memo of Petition) that Revenue has not raised in the Grounds of the said Appeal, the issue of non-jurisdiction of Single Member Bench of the Tribunal. It is observed from the records that the matter was taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble High Court initially on 16.05.2016, and 06.06.2016 and was finally disposed by order dated 29.07.2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:- "Learned counsels appearing for the parties have jointly requested that in view of peculiar situation, when the petitioners themselves have chosen to file Misc. Civil Applications for recalling of the orders impugned in these matters and as those Misc. Civil Applications have been placed for hearing on 5.8.2016, these matters be disposed of reserving liberty into the parties to approach the Court taking out appropriate proceedings on the outcome of the same and Court may observe that the Court has not observed anything on merits. Orders accordingly. Matters are disposed of. At this stage, it is urged that let there be a direction to dispose of Misc. Civil Applications ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case" was, whether rejection of Compounding Application as premature and not maintainable by Chief Commissioner, was correct or not and hence the Single Member Bench of Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the same. 9. The ld. Special Counsel relied upon the unreported judgement dated 07.05.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Budhia Swain & Ors vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors, which held that the Tribunal or Court may recall the order earlier made by it if the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent. The ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents quoted from the same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that power to recall the judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceedings such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. Hence he submitted that the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in favour of respondents in the facts of the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error in contending that their appeal before CEGAT ought to have been heard by a Special Bench and could not have been heard and decided by a member of CEGAT, sitting singly. " The contention of the ld. Senior Counsel is that it is a settled law that the case must relate to determination of any question proximately or directly relating to rate of duty or value of goods. He contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contentions of the appellants therein saying that the question of rate of duty did not directly arise and held that the case do not have any direct or proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment either to the rate of duty applicable to the said goods or to the value thereof. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that there are plethora of cases in respect of similar situations, wherein the matters are heard by Single Member Bench. He cited the decision of the Single Member Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Girish B. Mishra vs. CCE, Ahmd. - 2012 (283) ELT 579 (Tri. Ahmd.) which examined the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeals arising out of rejection of Compounding Applications. The said decision was uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the line of contention of the Ld. Special Counsel and to decide the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench on the basis of the value or duty or drawback amount of the 'root' matter. Valuation dispute, or Rate of duty dispute, or the drawback amount eligible, are not before us to decide in the present appeal. We are called upon here to decide whether the impugned order rejecting the Compounding of Offences application as premature is correct or not. In view of the above, we find that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction for the Single Member Bench in hearing the appeals and miscellaneous applications and in passing the interim order No. I.O./120-123/2016 dated 21.03.2016. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Budhia Swain & Ors (supra) cited by ld. Special Counsel for "recall", is not applicable. Moreover, ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue has not raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench during the hearing of the miscellaneous application and we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Sri Budhia Swain & Ors also held that the power to recall the judgment will not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s herein have taken the issue to various forums. Hence we find that the direction issued to Revenue in the interim order to the effect that "no coercive steps relating to personal liberty of the Applicants be taken" is no more relevant. Therefore, while upholding that there is no lack of jurisdiction nor any infirmity in the interim order dated 21.3.2016, nevertheless we find that the said direction ought to be discontinued now. We hold accordingly. The present miscellaneous applications succeeds partially to that extent. 16. Further, while hearing the case, the Bench had asked both sides whether they have any objection in transferring Miscellaneous Applications and the Appeals to the Division Bench of the Tribunal since important issues of law are involved in the matter. The Senior Counsel for the Respondents agreed to the said proposal of the Bench. However, the Ld. Special Counsel for Revenue insisted that first the subject Interim Order should be recalled, and Revenue has no objection for transfer of the pending Miscellaneous Applications and Appeals to Division Bench thereafter. We find it appropriate to transfer the hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
