2007 (1) TMI 561 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are (a) rejection of Application for Rectification of Mistakes by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (LB), (b) failure to rectify mistakes by CESTAT (LB), (c) interpretation of Regular Bench's responsibility in following reference orders, (d) consideration of delay in justice delivery, and (e) determination of the order falling within the purview of Sub-Section (1) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (a):
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (LB) rejected the Application for Rectification of Mistakes on the grounds of non-maintainability due to the order being a referral order and not a final order, despite the judgment rendered per incurium not being binding.

Issue (b):
CESTAT (LB) was criticized for not rectifying the apparent mistakes highlighted in the application of Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) filed by the department.

Issue (c):
The LB's failure to appreciate that the Regular Bench must follow the reference order passed by them and issue a final order based on it, thus leaving the mistakes apparent, untouched, unaltered, and unanswered. The concern was raised regarding setting a bad precedence by not rectifying the apparent mistakes.

Issue (d):
The LB was questioned for not appreciating the principle of "Justice delayed is justice denied" as held by the Court of Law, leading to several judgments of the Tribunal being set aside on this ground alone.

Issue (e):
The determination of whether the order dated 20th September, 2005 passed by CESTAT (LB) falls within the purview of Sub-Section (1) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the LB was correct in rejecting the application for Rectification of Mistakes filed by the department under Sub-Section (2) of the same section.

The High Court, after considering the questions of law raised, found that the present Appeal was not maintainable based on the judgment in CC (IMPORT), Mumbai v. Pride Foramer. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed, with the clarification that the Appellant could pursue appropriate proceedings regarding the raised legal issues.