2009 (6) TMI 737 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of foreign gold biscuits and imposition of penalty on nine individuals.
2. Appeal filed against the order before the Tribunal.
3. Remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for six appeals.
4. Disposal of all nine appeals by the Tribunal.
5. Remand of three remaining appeals by the Supreme Court.
6. Lack of representation by the appellants.
7. Submission by the Revenue regarding jurisdiction and nullity of Tribunal's order.
8. Consideration of submissions by the Tribunal.
9. Finality of Tribunal's order dated 31-3-2008.
10. Direction by the Supreme Court to decide the matter afresh.
11. Decision on the need for a fresh order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of 500 gold biscuits of foreign origin and imposition of penalties on nine individuals following an investigation by customs officers. The appellants filed appeals against the order before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeals in a previous judgment.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded six appeals to the Tribunal, setting aside judgments of the Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had disposed of all nine appeals, leading to a subsequent remand of the remaining three appeals by the Supreme Court.

3. Despite the lack of representation by the appellants during the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order dated 31-3-2008, which covered all nine appellants, was without jurisdiction and null and void due to the subsequent remand by the Supreme Court for three appellants.

4. The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the Revenue and noted the procedural lapses on both sides regarding the omission of the remand order by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal highlighted that no rectification of the mistake was sought within the specified time limit, leading to the finality of the Tribunal's order dated 31-3-2008.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the order had already implemented the Supreme Court's remand order for the three remaining appeals, and as there were no separate instructions for those appeals, there was no need for a fresh order. The Tribunal emphasized that the department had already filed an appeal against the Tribunal's decision for all nine appellants, ensuring no adverse effects on the parties involved.