2013 (10) TMI 901 - HC - Customs

Review petition - Tribunal recorded that merits as such was not argued before them when order dated 3rd June, 2011 was passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. At that time, as per the tribunal, only one question was argued that the appellant herein was not personally involved and the transaction in question was undertaken by one Sita Ram Aggarwal - Held that - Appeal filed against the order dated 3rd June, 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 9th February, 2012. At that time, it was submitted by the appellant that other points were also raised before the tribunal, but were not answered and decided. It was in these circumstances that in order dated 9th February, 2012 it was recorded that in case the appellant had argued and addressed other grounds, it was open to him to file an appropriate application before the tribunal. The said application was filed and has been dismissed recording the facts. The tribunal has held that in the earlier round the points now raised in the miscellaneous application were not argued and addressed. It is in this context the tribunal has observed that they do not have any power to review - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the impugned order dated 31st October, 2012 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Whether the tribunal had the power to review its own order.
3. Rejection of the appellant's contention regarding personal involvement in the transaction.
4. Dismissal of the appeal filed against the order dated 3rd June, 2011 by the High Court.

Analysis:

1. The High Court analyzed the order dated 31st October, 2012, where the tribunal stated that the appellant's affidavit did not address the grounds argued during the appeal hearing. The tribunal clarified that it lacked the authority to review its own order and emphasized that no legal question was raised before the High Court for the appeal's dismissal.

2. The tribunal's finding indicated that the appellant's argument of not being personally involved in the transaction was rejected. It was noted that even if the appellant acted in good faith towards his father-in-law, defrauding revenue by signing blank application forms and cheques could not be considered acting in good faith towards the public. The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant for causing revenue loss.

3. The appeal against the tribunal's order dated 3rd June, 2011 was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February, 2012. The appellant claimed that additional points were raised during the tribunal hearing but remained unanswered. The High Court suggested that if other grounds were indeed argued, the appellant could file a suitable application before the tribunal for consideration. However, the subsequent application was dismissed by the tribunal, which reiterated that it lacked the authority to review its previous decision.

4. Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly, upholding the decisions of the tribunal and reaffirming the penalty imposed on the appellant for causing revenue loss through the transaction in question.