Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2004 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (4) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Applications for recall of an order imposing a deposit condition for adjournment in appeals.

Analysis:
The appellants filed applications seeking the recall of an order dated 19-4-2004, which arose during the final hearing of three appeals along with other connected appeals. The Senior Counsel for the appellants was absent, and an adjournment was granted on the condition that an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore each be paid by the applicants for the purpose of Section 129E of the Customs Act. The applicants claimed incapability to deposit the amount, attributing the absence of their Senior Counsel to her preoccupation with a High Court case. The Senior Counsel argued that the Tribunal had the power to recall the order under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. The Revenue's Counsel contended that the Tribunal's powers for recall were limited by the norms set by the Supreme Court in Budhia Swain and Others v. Gopinath Deb and Others.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged discrepancies in the reasons for the Senior Counsel's absence but accepted the submissions made by her. The Tribunal deliberated on whether it had the power to recall the order under Rule 41, emphasizing that the order was not a dismissal but an adjournment with a deposit condition to prevent abuse of process. Referring to the judgments cited by both counsels, the Tribunal concluded that it had the inherent power to recall the order, as the condition imposed had prejudiced the appellants. Consequently, the order dated 19-4-2004 was recalled, and the appeals were adjourned to a later date.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal exercised its inherent power to recall the order, considering the prejudicial impact of the deposit condition on the appellants. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents cited by the counsels, ultimately leading to the recall of the order and the adjournment of the appeals to a future date.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates