Appellate Tribunal — Precedent — Judicial propriety — Co-ordinated Benches of Tribunal.

fiogf49gjkf0d

The Supreme Court while deciding an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of CESTAT, noticed difference of opinion between co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal on an identical issue. The Court showed their deep concern on the conduct of the two Benches of the Tribunal while deciding appeals in the cases of two parties, namely, IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd. and Techni Bharathi Ltd. After noticing the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the present case, they still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment, thereby creating a judicial uncertainty with regard to the declaration of law involved on an identical issue in respect of the same Exemption Notification. It needs to be emphasised that if a Bench of a Tribunal, in identical fact-situation, is permitted to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the Tribunal on earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. What was important is the Tribunal as an institution and not the personality of the members constituting it. If a Bench of the Tribunal wishes to take a view different from the one taken by the earlier Bench, the propriety demands that it should place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that the case is referred to a larger Bench, for which provision exists in the Act itself. The Court referred to the observations of a three-Judge Bench of the Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal & Anr. v. Ltd. Governor & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 644. The Court further directed that all the Courts and various Tribunals in the country shall follow these salutary observations in letter and spirit.