Rectification of mistake applications may be heard by a specially constituted Bench when the President directs otherwise.

Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 generally requires a rectification of mistake application to be heard by the Members who heard the appeal, but permits a different Bench where the President directs otherwise. The document states that, because the President specially constituted a two-Member Bench for the ROM, the statutory exception applied and that Bench was validly constituted to hear the application. It also notes a concurring view supporting that constitution, while a dissent considered that the ROM should, as a matter of propriety and consistency, have been heard by a three-Member Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for rectification of mistake arising from a final order passed by a three-member Bench of the Tribunal could be heard by a two-member Bench constituted by the President.

Issue (i): Whether an application for rectification of mistake arising from a final order passed by a three-member Bench of the Tribunal could be heard by a two-member Bench constituted by the President.

Analysis: Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requires the rectification application to be heard by the members who heard the appeal, unless the President directs otherwise. Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with the powers corresponding to Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, confers authority on the President to constitute Benches and regulate their functioning. The majority held that where the President has specially constituted a Bench for the ROM, the statutory exception in Rule 31A is attracted and the constitution of the two-member Bench is valid. The reliance on the rule requiring the same members was held not to override the President's statutory and procedural power.

Conclusion: The ROM could validly be heard by the two-member Bench constituted by the President.

Concurring Opinion: G.P. Agarwal, Member (J), agreed that the two-member Bench was validly constituted and could hear the application.

Dissenting Opinion: G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J), took the view that, as a matter of propriety and consistency with the earlier three-member hearing, the ROM should be heard by a Bench of three Members.

---