Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal had power under the relevant excise procedure provisions and its own procedural rules to direct the appellants to produce statements relied upon in the show cause notice.
Analysis: The provisions governing the Tribunal's procedure were read as conferring not merely administrative control over sittings but effective procedural authority for the discharge of its functions. The power to regulate procedure was treated as carrying with it the capacity to require production of documents necessary for adjudication, and the distinction between procedural power and procedural step was rejected as artificial in this context. Rule 41 was relied upon as enabling directions necessary to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had the power to direct production of the relied upon statements, and the objection to that power was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The request for production of the statements was allowed and the appellants were directed to furnish the relied upon documents so that the appeal could proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal empowered to regulate its own procedure for the discharge of its functions may, where necessary for adjudication and to secure the ends of justice, direct a party to produce relevant documents notwithstanding the absence of an express provision in the procedural incorporation clause.