Single-Member Tribunal jurisdiction upheld where bench allocation was administrative and no timely objection was raised

Allocation of an appeal to a single Member or a larger Bench is a matter of administrative convenience and does not curtail the inherent jurisdiction of a competent Member to decide the matter. A party that contested the appeal on merits without objecting at the hearing stage could not later treat the order as a nullity for want of jurisdiction. No apparent mistake of fact or law on the face of the order was shown, so the recall application was not maintainable and the impugned order stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's single Member lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal on the interpretation of Notification No. 1/95-C.E., and whether the final order was liable to be recalled on that ground.

Analysis: The application for recall was founded solely on the plea that interpretation of the notification was involved and, therefore, the appeal ought to have been heard by a two-Member Bench. The Tribunal held that assignment of matters to a single Member or a larger Bench is a matter of administrative convenience and does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of a competent Member to decide the appeal. Since the appeal had been heard on merits without any objection being raised at the hearing stage, the unsuccessful party could not later contend that the order was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. No apparent mistake of fact or law on the face of the order was shown.

Conclusion: The single Member had jurisdiction, the impugned order was not a nullity, and the recall application was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Allocation of cases between a single Member and a larger Bench on administrative grounds does not curtail inherent jurisdiction, and a party who has contested the appeal on merits without objection cannot later seek recall on the alleged ground of lack of jurisdiction.

---