1985 (1) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the learned SDR shall submit the records of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh relating to the Order-in-original No. ll/C.E./83, dated 11.5.1983 to the Registrar of this Tribunal within a week, and the learned Advocate for the appellants might inspect the records within a week after those were submitted to the registry. 2. In compliance with the order dated 13.9.1985, the learned SDR has submitted the file No. V(15-C) Add. CoLLR/15/21/AA&R of the Additional Collector, Chandigarh. The learned SDR has, however, submitted an application bearing appeal No. ED/885/ of 1983-NRB/5097, dated 11-9-1985 in which he has stated that he has been instructed to submit that the file being of a confidential nature its production an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this Tribunal's Order No. D-156/85, dated 12.11.1985 on Miscellaneous Application No. E/Misc./240/85-D in appeal No. ED(SB)(T) A. No. 855/80-D (M/s. Show Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda) in which Special Bench-D of this Tribunal has rejected the appellant's application for summoning the records of the lower authorities. 4. Shri R.K. Jain, learned Consultant opposed the prayer for rectification of the Order, dated 13.9.1985 on the ground that Tribunal has no power to review its own order. He has argued that the case records of quasi-judicial authority cannot be withheld from the appellants who want to inspect the same. The adjudicating authority in Order-in-original No. 11/C.E./83 has stated that he had gone....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation of the learned SDR is not supported by an affidavit from the Head of Department claiming privilege against the production of the file for inspection by the opposite party. 6. As regards Order No. D-156/85 of Special Bench D as cited by the learned SDR, we find that in the said case certain papers were allowed to be inspected by the appellants in the matter. They prayed for summoning some more papers from the lower authorities which prayer was objected to by the representative of the Department on the ground that the appellants cannot have unrestricted right of inspection and no inspection is called for or contemplated in law or rules governing the procedure of this Tribunal in hearing the appeal. The special Bench-D, rejected....