2009 (1) TMI 199 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal refers substantive issues to Larger Bench; emphasizes proper documentation and transparency in significant cases.

AMIT SALES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi-LB, addressed issues concerning the limitation period for appeal, the absence of a critical Agreement copy, and ... Reference to Lager Bench – Procedure - Mr. R.K. Jain on behalf of Bar submits that in respect of Larger Bench cases as per the orders passed on 16-3-2001 by the Hon’ble President, copies of appeal papers as well as referral orders along with hearing notice were required to be given to Bar Association. This practice is being followed generally in all Larger Bench matters. However, in this particular case, the Bar Association has not been given the copy of these papers. - The issues considered by the Larger Bench has wide implication and if there is a decision already taken to enlist the views of the Members of the Bar and that if this practice was being followed, the registry should follow the same in this case also. The registry is directed to do the needful in this regard. The Notice is to be given to the appellants as well as to the Bar Association Issues:1. Limitation period for appeal2. Copy of the Agreement not provided3. Procedure for Larger Bench casesAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi-LB involved several key issues. Firstly, the Company Secretary for the Appellant appeared before the Tribunal and focused solely on the limitation period for appeal, explicitly stating that they were not pressing on merits. Additionally, it was noted that the Company Secretary did not bring a copy of the Agreement central to the dispute. The Division Bench, considering the submissions made by the appellant on merits and referencing various Tribunal judgments cited during the personal hearing, decided to refer the issues to a Larger Bench. Notably, the Larger Bench was tasked with addressing the issues excluding those related to limitation, which would be handled by the Division Bench if necessary. The Company Secretary requested time to prepare the case on merits, a request that was not opposed by the Joint CDR.Moreover, the judgment highlighted a procedural matter raised by Mr. R.K. Jain on behalf of the Bar. He brought to attention the standard practice, established by the Hon'ble President's orders, of providing copies of appeal papers, referral orders, and hearing notices to the Bar Association in Larger Bench cases. However, in this specific instance, the Bar Association had not received these documents. As the issues under consideration by the Larger Bench were deemed to have significant implications, it was decided that the views of the Bar Association should be enlisted. The Tribunal directed the registry to ensure that the Bar Association and the appellants were duly notified for the next hearing, which was to be scheduled promptly.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the limitation period for appeal, the absence of the Agreement copy, and the procedural requirements for Larger Bench cases. It emphasized the need for proper documentation dissemination in legal proceedings, particularly in matters of substantial consequence. The Tribunal's decision to involve the Bar Association in the process underscored the significance of transparency and adherence to established practices in legal proceedings before the Tribunal.