ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. This application arises out of the order of the Tribunal bearing No. 540/94. The appellants have sought for rectification of the order. The Tribunal had passed this order taking into consideration the pleas made before the Bench at the time of the personal hearing as urged by the Consultant who appeared at that time. The plea of the appellants is that in a similar matter in the case of Wilson & Company in Appeal No. E/150/89 had been referred to the Larger Bench and therefore this appeal should also have been likewise referred to the Larger Bench instead of pronouncing on the merits of the issue in the appeal. Reference to the Larger Bench has been made in the case quoted and reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal) and Order No. 414/92, dated 9-9-1992 in Appeal Nos. E/150/89/ MAS and E/236/90/MAS. Further it has been urged that the Tribunal has passed the order in the context of non-filing of the declaration for the year 1988-89 without taking note of the fact that the declaration was filed for the year 1989-90. He has pleaded that in case a note had been taken of the declaration for the year 1989-90, the demand for 1989-90 could not have been made on the grounds of limitation. He stressed that in any case the Tribunal could not have passed the order on merits since a similar matter had been referred to the Larger Bench for consideration. He pleaded that legally order on merits could not have been passed by this Bench. He was asked to cite any case law in support of his this plea. He has fairly conceded there is no case law on the issue. Adverting to the second point raised he pleaded that the Tribunal had not passed an order taking into consideration the declaration filed for the period 1989-90 even though the Tribunal had taken note of the declaration filed for the year 1989-90. He has pleaded that the demand is for the period 1-4-1988 to 26-7-1989 and if the declaration filed for the financial year 1989-90 had been taken into consideration the demand would have been found to be hit by limitation as suppression could not be attributed to the appellants.
2. We referred to the Court Register during the hearing and found that the learned Consultant who appeared before us at that time did not deal with the issue of the demand in the context of declaration filed for the year 1989-90 and had urged his pleas only in the context of the demand and declaration filed for the year 1988-89. In this background the learned Advocate was asked how a plea of a mistake on face of the record could be urged when the Consultant himself did not put forth any plea in the context of the declaration filed for the year 1989-90. The learned Advocate had no specific plea to make in this background. In so far as this point is concerned therefore we hold that no error apparent on the record can be said to be there.
3. In regard to the first point raised i.e. having referred the matter on the same issue earlier to a Larger Bench, the Tribunal should not have proceeded to pronounce on the merits of the issue, we observe that as it is this earlier reference to the Larger Bench was not brought to our notice by the learned Consultant. There is no plea that the order passed on merits is in any way contrary to any of our observations in the said order. No fault legally can be found if an order on an issue referred to a Larger Bench in another case is passed. This order can be as it challenged either by way of reference to Hon’ble High Court or on appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the case may be on the merits of the issue decided. There is no vested right for an appellant to have a matter heard by a Larger Bench. The reference to a Larger Bench does not legally preclude the Bench from taking a decision on merits in another case. In view of the above, the application for rectification of mistake is dismissed.