Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ceat Tyres of India

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ceat Tyres of India

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Aug 14, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18910

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18910
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Aug 14, 2000
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Ceat Tyres of India

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT130TriDel

Excerpt

.....less on the issue is settled that if any point is taken before the bench that point is considered. he submits that in this case the difference of opinion arose was that of classification. he submits that limitation and methodology of calculation of duty amount might have not been considered important by the author of the order. he, therefore, submits that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the records.3. we have heard the rival submissions. we note that the difference arose on account of classification, the author of the order had agreed with the classification proposed by the assessee and since on merits, the issue was in favour of the assessee perhaps the author of the order did not consider it necessary to consider limitation and methodology.however, we find that when the second member did not agree with the classification claimed by the assessee then these two points now being contested before us i.e. limitation and methodology not only became relevant but important also. we, therefore, agree with the contention of the id. counsel for the applicant that there is a mistake while formulating the difference of opinion. in the circumstances, we hold that the point of limitation and methodology of calculation should first be decided by the bench and only if any difference of opinion arises on this count, not only the difference on classification but also the question of limitation and methodology of calculation on this may be required to be made to the third member. the rom is allowed in the above terms. the case should be listed before appropriate bench of two members.

Full Judgment

1. Shri Ravinder Narain, Id. Counsel submits that a mistake has crept in the Misc. Order No. 15/2000-C dt. 28.01.2000. He refers to the order and submits that it was admitted that the issues of limitation and methodology of calculation though discussed and brought to the notice of the original bench yet no order was passed by the original bench. He submits that thus the formulation of the points to be referred to the third member was wrong inasmuch as the question of limitation and methodology was not considered and decided by the original bench of two members. Ld. Counsel, therefore, submits that the matter should go to a Bench of two members to decide the issue of limitation and methodology of calculation of quantum of duty. He submits that once that position is decided by the Bench to be constituted after that the question to be referred to the third member may be reformulated. He, therefore, prays that the ROM may be allowed.

2. Shri S.P. Rao, Id. DR appearing for the appellant Commissioner submits that even if the points were not specifically commented upon the law more or less on the issue is settled that if any point is taken before the Bench that point is considered. He submits that in this case the difference of opinion arose was that of classification. He submits that limitation and methodology of calculation of duty amount might have not been considered important by the author of the order. He, therefore, submits that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the records.

3. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that the difference arose on account of classification, the author of the order had agreed with the classification proposed by the assessee and since on merits, the issue was in favour of the assessee perhaps the author of the order did not consider it necessary to consider limitation and methodology.

However, we find that when the second member did not agree with the classification claimed by the assessee then these two points now being contested before us i.e. limitation and methodology not only became relevant but important also. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the Id. Counsel for the applicant that there is a mistake while formulating the difference of opinion. In the circumstances, we hold that the point of limitation and methodology of calculation should first be decided by the Bench and only if any difference of opinion arises on this count, not only the difference on classification but also the question of limitation and methodology of calculation on this may be required to be made to the third member. The ROM is allowed in the above terms. The case should be listed before appropriate bench of two Members.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Ceat Tyres of India Same Subject Right to Information