TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (10) TMI 149
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 01/92-C, dated 26-12-1991 was passed by a three Member Bench directing the applicant to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) against the amount of duty demanded. The present application is for reconsideration/review, including rectification of the said Order. When the present application came up for hearing on 5-6-1992 by the Two-Member Bench, the Bench observed that since the present application relates to the modification of the stay order passed by a Three-Member Bench it would be more appropriate if the present application is heard by a Three-Member Bench, preferably by the same Bench or at least by a Three-Member Bench and, therefore, the matter be placed before the Hon'ble President. Thereafter the papers were placed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judicial decorum and legal propriety. In a nutshell his submission was that the present application be heard by a Three-Member Bench notwithstanding the Order of the Hon'ble President dated 10-6-1992. 2. In reply Smt. Ananya Ray, learned SDR, submitted that the present application is not an application for modification and it could be termed as an application for variation or vacation of the interim order (stay order) passed earlier and cited the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) wherein in paragraph 53 it is observed that - "Good deal of arguments were canvassed before us for variation or vacation of the interim orders passed in these cases. Different courts sometimes pass different inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanket stay. When repeatedly asked by the Bench to clarify the discrepancy Shri Gujral, learned counsel, could not reply satisfactorily. At one stage, he submitted that this is a review application adding that though it may include the prayer for rectification. When pointed out by the Bench that if the present application is for rectification of mistake then under Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) and Rules, 1982, the President has the power to pass such orders regarding the hearing of the application by a Bench different from the Bench which heard and passed the order earlier, he submitted that this Tribunal has inherent powers to reconsider or review its interlocutory order under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) and Rules, 1982 as interpr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y objection is over-ruled. 7. Arguing on the merits Shri B.B. Gujral, learned counsel, at the outset repeatedly submitted that he is confining his arguments only on the financial position of the applicant and drew our attention to the provisional Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1991 on the basis of which the aforesaid Stay Order No. 01/92-C was passed and also to the Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1992. It was his contention that while passing the aforesaid stay order the Bench considered the total assets of the Company, including total debtors, sundry creditors. Advances against sales and gross profits. He submitted that actually as per the provisional Balance Sheet ending 31-3-1991 total sundry creditors were Rs. 80,03,148.93 and not Rs. 47,59,50....