9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 223 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the apex Court was aware of the order passed in Fortune Marketing on the same day when present appellant Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd withdrew its appeal - Held that - while dismissing the appeal of Fortune Marketing on 13/01/2017 and dismissing the appeal of Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd on 03/03/2017 specific order of dismissal was passed by the Hon ble Court without leaving any scope for MA(ROM) before Tribunal in Fortune Marketing. The Supertron Electronics Pvt Ltd order was passed by the Tribunal on 06/01/2017 and that was appealed before the apex Court. That reached to its finality due to dismissal of Revenue s appeal on 25/10/2017 in civil appeal No.21552 of 2017. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that while dismissing the appeal of Fortune Marketing different reasoning was available to Supreme Court for a different conclusion. That does not help the appellant to come to Tribunal when it was not a party to Supertron Electronics Pvt Ltd case and its appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court along with fortune Marketing - Call on 12th December 2017.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the grant of liberty by the Apex Court and its impact on seeking other remedies upon dismissal of a civil appeal. 2. Application for rectification of mistake post-dismissal of civil appeal and its implications on judicial discipline. 3. Examination of the conditions for admitting an appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act based on the Steel Authority of India Ltd judgment. 4. Application of Section 100 of CPC, 1908 to appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act and the absence of limitations. 5. Effect of a common order passed by the Tribunal on multiple appeals and the subsequent withdrawal of one appeal. 6. Consideration of substantial questions of law and the finality of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. 7. Impact of the dismissal of related appeals on seeking further remedies before the Tribunal. 8. Awareness of previous judgments and orders while withdrawing an appeal and its relevance in subsequent legal proceedings. Analysis: 1. The Revenue argued that seeking other remedies post-dismissal of a civil appeal without a grant of liberty by the Apex Court is impermissible, citing judgments such as Abhishek Malviya and Vinod Kapoor. The learned Commissioner emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the need to respect the finality of decisions made by higher courts. The argument revolved around the principle that remedies sought after the dismissal of a civil appeal are not permitted, as reiterated in various legal precedents. 2. The Revenue further relied on the Steel Authority of India Ltd judgment to establish the conditions for admitting an appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the necessity of a direct nexus to the determination of duty rates, substantial questions of law, and violations of procedural justice. The argument emphasized that the appellant, having lost its case without the consideration of substantial legal questions, had exhausted its remedies and was bound by the Supreme Court's ruling. 3. The discussion extended to the application of Section 100 of CPC, 1908 to appeals under the Customs Act, stressing the absence of limitations in such statutory appeals. The Revenue contended that the principles laid down in the Steel Authority of India Ltd judgment should guide the testing of statutory appeals, ensuring adherence to legal standards and the resolution of conflicting decisions. 4. The impact of a common order passed by the Tribunal on multiple appeals was deliberated upon, especially in the context of one appeal being withdrawn post the Supreme Court's ruling on related matters. The argument centered on the finality of judgments and the merging of orders, highlighting the need to respect the conclusions reached by higher courts. 5. The discussion also touched upon the awareness of previous judgments and orders while withdrawing an appeal, emphasizing the importance of transparency and knowledge of legal proceedings. The argument aimed to prevent the abuse of legal processes and reiterated the significance of respecting the decisions made by the courts at various levels.
|
