Tribunal reference on point of difference may be completed by successor Bench using recorded majority opinion, without fresh rehearing.

Where two Tribunal Members had already recorded signed, separate opinions and identified a point of difference, the matter did not require a fresh rehearing before the same Members. The governing scheme under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as applied by Section 35D(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, contemplated disposal on the basis of the majority opinion of the Members who heard the case. A successor Special Bench could therefore complete the reference by applying the recorded majority view, and the retirement of the original Members did not make the proceedings infructuous or require a de novo hearing. Natural justice did not mandate a further hearing at the final stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the two Members of the original Tribunal Bench had recorded their separate opinions and differed on a point, the matter had to be reheard by the same Members or could be disposed of by a successor Special Bench in accordance with the President's decision on the point of difference.

Analysis: The governing scheme under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as applied by Section 35D(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, requires the point of difference to be decided according to the majority opinion of the Members who heard the case, including the original Members. The order reasoned that once the original Members had recorded signed opinions and formulated the point of difference, there was no requirement of a fresh hearing on merits. The successor Bench's function was confined to ascertaining the recorded majority view and disposing of the appeal in accordance with that view. The absence of the original Members by retirement did not render the proceedings infructuous, and the principles of natural justice did not require a de novo rehearing at the final stage.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection that the appeal had become infructuous and required rehearing was rejected; a successor Bench could dispose of the matter on the basis of the recorded opinions and the President's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory reference on a point of difference has already been completed by recorded signed opinions of the original Members, final disposal may be made by a competent successor Bench on the basis of the majority opinion, without a fresh rehearing of the parties.

---