Court Affirms President's Authority to Form Larger Benches, Rejects Challenges Based on Propriety Grounds.

The court upheld the constitution of the Larger Bench, rejecting the preliminary objection that challenged its composition on grounds of propriety. It affirmed the President's authority to form such benches under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and clarified that any challenges to the composition should be directed to the President, not the Bench. The judgment emphasized that the President's power to constitute a Larger Bench is absolute and not subject to propriety challenges before the Bench itself. The objection was overruled, maintaining the integrity of the Bench's formation process.

---

---

Issues:
Constitution of Larger Bench challenged on grounds of propriety and composition imbalance.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the constitution of a Larger Bench challenged on the basis of propriety and composition imbalance. The Larger Bench was formed to consider a point referred by a Referring Bench. The objection raised by the learned Joint C.D.R. was that the Larger Bench was not properly constituted due to the final opinions expressed by the members of the Referring Bench in earlier cases. The objection highlighted concerns about bias and imbalance in the composition of the Larger Bench, potentially favoring one side over the other. However, the objection was clarified to challenge the composition on grounds of propriety rather than legality.

In response to the objection, the learned Consultant argued that the views expressed by the Referring Bench members were not final and that all members of the Larger Bench were free to form independent opinions after hearing both sides. It was emphasized that the President of the Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to constitute a Larger Bench, and the composition could not be challenged based on propriety. The Consultant criticized the preliminary objection raised by the Joint C.D.R., stating it was not in good taste.

The judgment delved into the legal provisions governing the constitution of Larger Benches under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It referenced the interpretation by the Supreme Court in a previous case, affirming the President's absolute power to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve differences of opinion. The judgment concluded that the President's power to form a Larger Bench was not subject to challenge on grounds of propriety before the Bench itself. Therefore, the preliminary objection challenging the constitution of the Larger Bench based on propriety was overruled.

In essence, the judgment upheld the constitution of the Larger Bench, emphasizing the President's authority to form such benches to address differences of opinion. It clarified that challenges to the composition of the Larger Bench should be directed to the President if required by law or procedure, rather than being raised before the Bench itself.

---