M/S. ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M/S. ELPRO INTER>IATIONAL LTD. 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PL:NE 
MAY 2, 1996 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.j 
Customs, Excise and Gold (Co11tro/) Appellate Tribunal (Procedurej 
Rules, 1982: Rule 31-A. 
C 
Constitution of Bench to hear applications for rccttjication of nzis-
takes~Jurisdiction uf President-Scupe of-Held : President did not hai·e 
jtuisdictiun to constitute bench consisting uf lesser 11un1ber of ,'\fcn1bers than 
(niginal Bench 1vhich passed j/'Jull ordcl'--(jo/d (control) Act, J96R, S.OJ-
A(2}. 
D 
Central Excises· and Sult Act, 1944: Sections 35-C und 35-D---Rectificu-
E 
tion apjJ/ication to rectijj' order passed 011 rer.:tification applicution--J\fain-
tainability of-Question left u11en. 
The appellant was engaged in the tnanufacture of cfnnponents and 
parts of X-Ray machines. A special Bench of three members of the Central 
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal passed final order 
remanding the matter to the Collector for examining \rhether the appellant 
and another company (IGE) \\'as a related person . 
. .\n order of rectification was passed by a Bench comprising of three 
F 
members directing the rectification of the final order. A direction was given 
to recall the final order. The appellant lile further rectification applica-
tions \\'hich came up before a Bench of the Tribunal consisting of ffi'o 
111embers. The appellant raised the plea that the said rectification applica-
tions could not be heard by a Bench con111rising of less than three J\lem-
G 
bers since the final order in the appeal as also the earlier rectification 
order were 11assed by a Bench comprising of three J\'le1nbers. The Tribunal 
by a maj°Ority repelled the said plea and held that the applications for 
rectification of mistake in the facts and circumstances, could be heard by 
a Bench of two Members as constituted by the President for the purpose. 
Being aggrieved by the said order the ap1iellant preferred the present 
H appeal. 
246 
ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF C.E. 
247 
A.llcnring the appeal, this Court 
A 
HELD : I.I. It is evident from Rule 31-A of the Customs Excise and 
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 that the same 
Bench which passed the final order, should hear the application for 
rectification of nlistakes. Due to subsequent events, a situation may emerge B 
\\'hen o~e or 1nore of the Members who pronounced the order may cease 
to hold the ofiice as a Member of the Tribunal. In such a situation, it is 
certainly open to the President to direct that the application may he heard 
by a Bench consisting: of a .l'vlember/l\1lembers '''ho did not originally hear 
the appeal and passed the order. The Members who constitute the 
Tribunal for hearing the rectification proceedings, may be different. To C 
this extent, the President can direct othernise. Normally, it will not enable 
the President to constitute entirely a new and different Bench, even if one 
or more of the Me1nbers who heard the appeal and rendered the order 
originally, are available. In any view of the matter, Rule 31-A of the CEGAT 
(Procedure) Rules, 1982 will not clothe the President with jurisdiction to D 
constitute a Bench consisting of lesse.r number of Members, than the 
original Bench which heard the appeal and rendered the final order. This 
vie\v is in accord with judicial 4ecorum, discipline and fairness. Any other 
interpretation will bring about a situation to clothe the President of the 
Tribunal with arbitrary po\\'ers. Such an intention cannot be imputed in 
framing Rule 31-A. [251-B-F] 
E 
1.2. Moreover, the order passed under Rule 31-A will have the impact 
of altering, amending or modifying the final order. A final order passed 
by a Bench of three Members cannot be modified or altered or amended 
by a Bench consisting of lesser Members. However, the question whether F 
a rectification application \Vould lie to rectify an order passed on rectifica~ 
tion application is left open. [251-G, 252-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8267-68 
of 1s;0. 
From the Jmlgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Central Customs, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi-in Misc. Order 
No. 04/95A and 205/95A. 
R.F. Nariman and K.J. John for the Appellant. 
G 
H 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
N.K. Bajpai, V.K. Verma and S.D. Sharma for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
The Order of the court was delivered by 
PARIPOORNAN, J.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.