http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: M/S. ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1996

BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 199        JT 1996 (5)   313  1996 SCALE  (4)646

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Paripoornan R.F.Nariman, Sr.Adv. and K.J.John, Adv. with him for the appellant N.K.Bajpai, V.K.Verma and S.D.Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.                       J U D G M E N T The following Order of the Court was delivered: M/s. Elpro International Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise, Pune                       J U D G M E N T PARIPOORNAN. J.      Special leave granted. 2.   The appellants  are  applicants  in  Misc.  Orders  No. 04/95-A and  205/95-A before  the Customs,  Excise and  Gold (Control) Appellate  Tribunal (hereinafter  referred  to  as ’the CEGAT’),  New Delhi  Special Bench  ’A’. This appeal by special leave  is filed against the majority decision of the CEGAT dated  5.9.1995 in  the said  proceedings holding that the application  for rectification  of mistake, in the facts and circumstances, can be heard by a Bench consisting of two Members, as constituted by the President for the purpose. 3.   The  appellant   is  engaged   in  the  manufacture  of components and  parts of  X-Ray machines. A special Bench of three Members of the CEGAT passed final order Nos. 7 & 8/91- A dated  December 18,  1990/January 8,  1991  remanding  the matter to  the Collector for examining whether the appellant and another  company (IGE)  is a  related Person. The appeal filed from  the said order of CEGAT under Section 35L of the Act is pending before this Court. 4.   An  order  of  rectification  was  passed  by  a  Bench comprising of  three Members  directing the rectification of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

the final  order, in ROM No. E/ROM/14/91-A in E/1500/88-A. A direction was given to recall the final order. The appellant filed  further  rectification  applications  being  ROM  No. E/ROM/06/93-A and  E/ROM/42/93-A. The above two applications came up  before a  Bench of  the Tribunal  consisting of two Members.  The  appellant  raised  the  plea  that  the  said rectification applications  could not  be heard  by a  Bench comprising of  less than three Members since the final order in the  appeal as  also the earlier rectification order were passed by  a Bench comprising of three Members. The Tribunal by a majority (2:1) repelled the said plea and held that the applications for  rectification of  mistake in the facts and circumstances, can  be heard  by a  Bench of  two Members as constituted by the President for the purpose. The said order is assailed in these appeals. 5.   We heard counsel. It is seen that the final order dated 8.1.1991 in  the appeals was passed by a Bench consisting of three Members  - Shri  I.J.  Rao,  Technical  Member  (since retired), Ms.  S.V. Maruthi, Judicial Member (since elevated to Andhra  Pradesh High  court) and  Sri G.A.  Brahma  Deva, Judicial Member.  The Rectification  Applications were heard and orders  passed on 2.11.1992 by a Bench consisting of Ms. S.V. Maruthi,  Judicial Member  (since  elevated  to  Andhra Pradesh High  Court), Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Judicial Member and Sri N.K. Bajpai, Technical Member (since retired). It is thereafter, the  appellants filed  the present  applications which came  up for  final hearing.  It is common ground that the President, CEGAT constituted the Bench comprising of Sri K.S. Venkataramani,  Technical Member  and Sri  G.A.  Brahma Deva, Judicial  Member to  hear the  applications. When  the plea of  improper constitution  of the  Bench was taken, Sri K.S. Venkataramani, Technical Member, took the view that the Bench as  constituted by  the President is competent to hear the applications.  On the  other  hand,  Shri  Brahma  Deva, Judicial Member  took the  view that the applications should be heard  by a Bench consisting of three Members. in view of the difference  of opinion, the following point was referred for decision of a third Member :      "In the  facts  and  circumstances,      whether an application filed by the      applicants   for    rectifying    a      mistake, can  be heard  by a  Bench      consisting of  two members  as held      by the  Member (T)  or it should be      heard  by  a  Bench  consisting  of      three members since the main appeal      was heard  by a Bench consisting of      three  members,   as  proposed   by      Member (J)."                     (emphasis supplied.) Sri G.P.  Agarwal, Member  (Judicial), the  third Member, to whom the matter was referred, held as follows:      "that    in     the    facts    and      circumstances   of    the   present      application filed  by the appellant      for rectifying  the mistake  can be      heard by  a Bench of two Members as      constituted    by    the    Hon’ble      President for this purpose."                      (emphasis supplied) 6.   During the  course of  arguments, Section  35D  of  the Central Excises  and Salt  Act and  Rule 31-A  of the  CEGAT (Procedure) Rules  1982 were highlighted before us. They are as follows :      "35-D.    Procedure of    Appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    Tribunal:- (1)  The  provisions  of      subsections (1),  (2), (5)  and (6)      of Sec.  129-C of  the Customs Act,      1962 (52  of 1962),  shall apply to      the  Appellate   Tribunal  in   the      discharge of  the  functions  under      this Act as they apply to it in the      discharge of  its  functions  under      the Customs Act, 1962.      (2)  Every   appeal    against    a      decision or  order relating,  among      other things,  to the determination      of any  question having  a relation      to the  rate of  duty of  excise or      the value  of goods for purposes of      assessment, shall  be  heard  by  a      Special Bench  constituted  by  the      President for hearings such appeals      and such Bench shall consist of not      less  than   three   members   (two      members) and shall include at least      one   judicial   member   and   one      technical member.      (3)......................."                      (emphasis supplied) Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982:      "31A.   Same    Bench    to    hear      applications for  rectification  of      mistakes  -   An  application   for      rectification of  mistake  apparent      from the  record, under  subsection      (2) of  section 129B of the Customs      Act, or  sub-section (2) of section      35C of the Central Excises and salt      Act, or  sub-section (2) of section      81A  of  the  Gold  (Control)  Act,      shall   be   heard   by   a   Bench      consisting of the Members who heard      the  appeal   giving  rise  to  the      application, unless  the  President      directs otherwise."                      (emphasis supplied) 7.   We perused  the three  different orders  passed by  the Members of  the Tribunal.  The majority  of the Members have stressed the  language of Rule 31-A in the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules  of   1982,  in   holding  that  any  application  for rectification of  mistake can  be heard  otherwise  than  as prescribed under  Rule 31-A if the President so directs. The dissenting Member  Sri Brahma  Deva expressed  the view that any order  passed in the rectification proceedings will have the effect  of modifying,  amending or  altering  the  final order and  such rectified  order becomes  the final order in the appeal.  And so, there is logic and propriety in holding that when  once an  appeal was  heard and decided by a Bench consisting of  three Members,  the rectification proceedings which  will   have  the  effect  of  altering,  amending  or modifying the  final order  should also  be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Members. 8.   On hearing  counsel,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the dissenting order  passed by  Sri G.A.  Brahma  Deva,  Member (Judicial) is legal and proper. It is evident from Rule 31-A of the  CEGAT (Procedure)  Rules, 1982  that the  same Bench which passed  the final  order, should  hear the application for rectification  of mistakes.  Due to subsequent events, a situation may  emerge when  one or  more of  the Members who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

pronounced the  order may  cease to  hold the  office  as  a Member of the Tribunal -- by retirement, death or otherwise. Though, ordinarily,  the rectification application should be heard by  a Bench  consisting of  the Members  who heard the appeal giving rise to the application, the subsequent events or the  change in  situation or  altered circumstances,  may render it  impossible. In  such a situation, it is certainly open to  the President to direct that the application may be heard by  a Bench consisting of a Member/Members who did not originally hear  the appeal  and passed  the order. In other words, the  Members, who constitute the Tribunal for hearing the rectification  proceedings, may  be different.  To  this extent, the  President can  direct otherwise.  Normally,  it will not  enable the  President to constitute entirely a new and different  Bench, even if one or more of the Members 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  constitute a  Bench  consisting  of  lesser number of  Members, than  the original Bench which heard the appeal and rendered the final order. We are of the view that the above position follows from a mere reading of Rule 31-A. This view is in accord with judicial decorum, discipline and airness.  Any   other  interpretation  will  bring  about  a situation to  clothe the  President  of  the  Tribunal  with arbitrary powers.  Such an  intention cannot  be imputed  in framing Rule 31-A. 9.   The order  passed under  Rule 31-A will have the impact of altering,  amending or  modifying the final order. We are of the  view that  a final  order passed by a Bench of three Members cannot  be modified or altered or amended by a Bench consisting of  lesser Members. A Full Bench is superior to a Division Bench  and a  Division Bench  to  a  single  Member Bench. The  object for constituting a Division Bench or Full Bench, is  the fact  that multi-Member  tribunals create the opportunity  for  mature  deliberation  which  improves  and enhances   individual decision making by adding perspectives and excluding  or  at  least  minimizing  faulty  reasoning. Judicial propriety  and fairness require, that so long as it is possible  and feasible, the same number of Members should constitute the  Bench to  hear the rectification proceedings as well.  It is  also prudent  and pragmatic  and will avoid chaos. In  the above  perspective, we hold that the majority decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal appealed  against,  is  erroneous  in  law  and  so unsustainable. We  set aside  the  orders  so  passed  dated 5.9.1995. The  appeals are  allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.      Before concluding,  we would  like to  make  clear  two aspects.  The  first  aspect  is,  whether  a  rectification application  will   lie  to   rectify  an  order  passed  on rectification application.  This aspect  was not  argued. We leave this aspect open. The second aspect is more important. We  are   informed  that  innumerable  similar/rectification applications are pending before the Tribunal. We should make it clear  that no  applicant can  claim or  insist for early hearing or  priority hearing  of such an application. Taking into account  the overall pendency of such applications, the availability of  Members to dispose of such applications and the feasibility and practicability to constitute appropriate Bench, it  is for the President (subject to the observations contained in  this judgment)  to constitute  an  appropriate Bench for  hearing of  the application.  All that we want to state is  that the  applicant cannot  insist  for  an  early hearing or  for giving  a priority  in the matter. It is for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the President, to pass appropriate orders in his discretion, by evaluation  of the volume of work, pendency of the number of   applications,   availability   of   Members   and   the practicability of constitution of Benches.