MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1991-10-15
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 22,1991

Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HARISH CHANDER,VICE PRESIDENT - (1.) THE present miscellaneous application emerges from Tribunal's order No. 328 to 330/1991 dated 18 -4 -1991/6 -6 -1991. Shri R.K. Habbu, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He has pleaded that the Tribunal should exercise its powers in terms of provisions of Rules 40 and 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Shri Habbu pleaded that after the remand of the matter by the Tribunal, the Collector has issued a show cause notice and he pleaded that the Tribunal should issue certain directions to the Collector. In support of his argument, he relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and another reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 89 (Cal.) where the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had held that when an order is set aside by an appellate authority and is remanded back with specific direction, the power and jurisdiction of the lower authority is limited to the extent the case is remanded back. Therefore, in such cases entire matter is not at large before the lower authority nor such authority is free to decide the case in his own way. He further stated that the Hon'ble High Court had further observed that if a point was not decided in the earlier order, then it will be out of jurisdiction to decide such a point on remand. He pleaded that in case the Tribunal does not issue such a direction under Rules 40 and 41 of the Cegat (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it will amount to grave injustice to the applicants. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the miscellaneous application.
(2.) SHRI A.K. Singhal, the learned Jr. D.R. who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, opposed the acceptance of the miscellaneous application and stated that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the exercise of powers under Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. He has pleaded for the rejection of the miscellaneous application.
(3.) WE have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. By the present miscellaneous application the applicant has made the following prayers: - "(a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleaded to (i) declare that the aforesaid notice issued by the respondent is bad in law and that it travels beyond the direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal, (ii) direct the Respondent to state specifically the method of valuation which he is proposing to adopt for the purpose of assessment; and (b) for such other directions/orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case." A simple perusal of the prayer of the application shows that the applicants want that the Tribunal should intervene at this stage viz. in the re -adjudication proceedings. The applicants have made a prayer for exercise of powers under Rules 40 and 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Both the Rules are reproduced below: "40. Control over departmental authorities in certain matters. - The Tribunal shall exercise control over the departmental authorities in relation to all matters arising out of the exercise of the powers or of the discharge of the functions of the Tribunal. 41. Orders and directions in certain stage. - The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice." A simple perusal of Rule 40 shows that the Tribunal shall exercise control over the departmental authorities in relation to all matters arising out of the exercise of the powers or of the discharge of the functions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had disposed of the appeals after taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the sides and had remanded the matter for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 430 had held that the Tribunal has got inherent and ancillary powers. We are of the view that for imparting justice, the Tribunal can always exercise inherent and ancillary powers in suitable cases. Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 also authorise the Tribunal to exercise control over the departmental authorities in certain matters and issue orders and directions in suitable circumstances. The learned advocate Shri Habbu has cited a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and another reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 89 (Cal.). The facts and circumstances of that case are different and do not fit in the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our powers for issuing directions under Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The miscellaneous application filed by the applicants is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.