1998 (1) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upon. (ii) Whether a decision given by a collateral Bench, involving identical issue, is binding for subsequent matters and if the Bench differed with the earlier view the matter should have been referred to a larger Bench and since the same was published in 1944, the same was deemed to have been known." 2. The reference application arises from the Tribunal's Misc. Order No. M/137/97-NB dated 7-7-1997 rejecting an ROM application filed by the CCE, New Delhi against its Final Order No. A/112/97-NB dated 9-1-1997 [reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 696 (Tribunal)] by which the Department's Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nos. 255-256/CE/ DLH/92 dated 30-4-1992 was rejected and the Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicant Commissioner in the present Ref. application Shri P.K. Jain, SDR submitted that the Bench's observation that since the Department had not brought the decision given by a collateral Bench to its notice there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record has raised an important question of law needing reference to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 35G. He submitted that the decision given by a collateral Bench of the Tribunal should normally be binding on another Bench. If a Bench differed from the order of another collateral Bench the normal course would be to refer the question to a Larger Bench. It was not open to a Bench to reject an ROM application on the ground that the earlier decision was not brought to its notice. He ....