2009 (9) TMI 827 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rectification of mistake in the stay order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Application to remove certain portions of the stay order.
3. Judicial proceeding before the Tribunal.
4. Misconceived application by the learned Commissioner.
5. Clubbing the present appeal with another appeal filed by M/s. Prasad Enterprises.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue filed a Misc. Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the stay order passed by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the proceeding before the Tribunal was judicial, and the averments made by both sides were properly recorded. The Revenue's application was challenged on the grounds that the order was under subjudice due to a Writ Petition filed in the High Court. The Tribunal, being a quasi-judicial authority, emphasized the importance of following due process of law and ensuring the principles of natural justice were upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, noting that the matter was before the High Court and self-discipline required them not to interfere while the order was under subjudice.

2. The second issue involved an application by the Revenue to remove certain portions of the stay order. The Revenue argued that the learned Commissioner was aggrieved by a specific paragraph in the stay order and sought its deletion. The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceeding before them was in an interim stage but emphasized that the principles of natural justice were crucial. The Tribunal noted that both sides were heard, and the Revenue's suggestion for remand was duly recorded. However, the Tribunal found no mala fide intent in the Revenue's application and highlighted the fair approach of the Revenue's representative in seeking justice for both sides. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Revenue's application, stating that the matter was under subjudice in the High Court.

3. The third issue revolved around the nature of the judicial proceeding before the Tribunal. Both sides were heard, and the Tribunal made it clear that they operated as a quasi-judicial authority and were committed to upholding due process of law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring justice was not only done but also seen to have been done. They highlighted the fair approach of the Revenue's representative in seeking justice for both sides and dismissed the Revenue's application as misconceived due to the matter being subjudice in the High Court.

4. The fourth issue involved a misconceived application by the learned Commissioner regarding the stay order. The Revenue sought the deletion of certain portions of the order, which the Tribunal found to be without merit due to the matter being under subjudice in the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized the need to respect the higher Court's jurisdiction and not interfere with matters that were already being considered by them.

5. The final issue concerned the request to club the present appeal with another appeal filed by M/s. Prasad Enterprises. The Tribunal allowed the clubbing of the appeals, subject to the outcome of the Writ application pending in the High Court. Both sides were granted liberty to mention any necessary orders once a decision was reached by the High Court on the Writ application. The Tribunal ensured that the procedural aspects were followed diligently and in accordance with the law.