Appellate Tribunal President's Authority Upheld in Assignment Dispute

The Court refrained from interfering and left the decision to the President of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the assignment of a matter with differences of opinion between members. The Court emphasized the President's authority under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and disposed of the writ petition, allowing the President to reconsider assigning the matter to Shri Ashok Jindal or another member. This case underscores the balance between judicial interference and administrative functions within the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assignment of matter to a specific member of the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Difference of opinion between members of the Tribunal.
3. President's authority to assign matters under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Judicial interference in administrative functions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought directions to assign a matter, which had differences of opinion between two members, to any member except Shri Ashok Jindal. The President had referred the matter to Shri Ashok Jindal, leading to the Commissioner of Central Excise questioning this decision.

2. The Court observed that there were identical issues in the points of difference framed at different stages of the proceedings. The petitioner argued that the assignment of the matter to the third Member was an administrative function of the President under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the matter, stating that it couldn't interfere using extraordinary powers. Instead, the Court left the decision to the President of the Appellate Tribunal, allowing them to reconsider and decide whether to assign the matter to Shri Ashok Jindal or another member for hearing and decision.

4. The Court emphasized that the President had the authority to make the appropriate decision in this regard. The writ petition was disposed of with the Court's observations, leaving the final decision to the President of the Appellate Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of the President's role in assigning matters within the Appellate Tribunal, the issue of differences of opinion between members, and the balance between judicial interference and administrative functions in such matters.

---