2017 (7) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - attachment of bank properties - Held that - There is no dispute that, in relation to the appeals against the order-in-original dated 29th March 2006, the restoration is entirely in order. There is also no doubt that this restoration flows from the directions issued by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay - Our disinclination to consider submissions which we do not deem to be relevant to the decision to restore the appeals does not preclude the applicant Commissioner from placing the matter before higher appellate authorities for redressal. In the absence of prejudice, seeking a rectification of our order on the ground of non-consideration of submissions is not without impropriety. We do not wish to dilate further on this transgression - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent on the record in relation to the restoration of appeals and lifting of property attachment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
The case involved multiple appeals filed against orders-in-original by different appellants. The Tribunal had directed pre-deposit amounts from the appellants, which led to the dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance. Subsequent restoration applications were also dismissed, but the High Court directed the restoration of one appeal subject to compliance with pre-deposit orders. Eventually, the restoration of multiple appeals, including that of Mrs. Parimala Singh, was ordered.

2. Primary Submission and Tribunal's Response:
The Authorized Representative sought the recall of the entire restoration order citing errors. However, the Tribunal declined, stating that the restoration of appeals would be subject to further hearing and final disposal according to the law. The Tribunal distinguished the case from a precedent where a final decision had been rendered, emphasizing that restoration did not prejudice the Commissioner's right to counter the grounds raised in the appeals.

3. Errors Listed by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner contended that the restoration was not consistent with the High Court's order, but the Tribunal clarified that it had the authority to restore appeals not specifically directed by higher courts. The order emphasized compliance with pre-deposit terms for restoration and rejected claims of errors on this aspect.

4. Jurisdiction for Lifting Property Attachment:
The Commissioner questioned the jurisdiction to lift property attachment, arguing it lacked legal basis. However, the Tribunal justified the action as enabling compliance with pre-deposit conditions and ensuring justice for all parties involved.

5. Consideration of Submissions and Dismissal of Applications:
The Commissioner alleged that submissions made during restoration hearings were not considered, but the Tribunal explained that restoration applications were limited in scope and focused on rectifying non-compliance with pre-deposit orders. The Tribunal emphasized affording appellants an opportunity to be heard and dismissed the rectification applications as lacking merit.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications for rectification of errors apparent on record, highlighting that the restoration of appeals did not prejudice the Revenue. The decision was pronounced on 31/05/2017, concluding the legal proceedings in the case.