2019 (12) TMI 134 - HC - Customs

Reopening of appeal - power to review its own order - absence of any petition for review - challenge in this Appeal is to the order dated 19th April, 2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), rejecting the appeal instituted by the Appellant herein against the order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - HELD THAT - It is obvious that very taking up the Appeal by the Tribunal on 19th April, 2007 was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. Since the Appeal had already been disposed of by the order dated 10th July, 1998, there was really no occasion for taking up such appeal for reconsideration. It is obvious that such taking up of the Appeal was a result of miscommunication. It is obvious that the factum of disposal of the Appeal by order dated 10th July, 1998 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, either by the SDR or the staff of the Tribunal - Impugned order set aside. It is not necessary to go into the larger issue as to whether the Tribunal has any power to review its own Judgments and orders. However, we must note that Ms. Desai did place reliance upon the decision of the CP. AQUACULTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRESIDENT, CESTAT 2010 (11) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT to submit that the Tribunal is not vested with any such power of review. The substantial questions of law, as framed, are liable to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reopening of an appeal by CESTAT already disposed of by its own order.
2. CESTAT's power to review its own order without a petition for review.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 19th April, 2007, which rejected the appeal against the order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The initial appeal had been allowed in 1998 by enhancing the final penalty based on precedents and guidelines. However, the Tribunal mistakenly took up the appeal again in 2007, unaware of its previous final disposal in 1998. This action was deemed an exercise in excess of jurisdiction due to miscommunication, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in 2007. The High Court set aside the 2007 order due to the lack of necessity for reconsideration after the 1998 final disposal.

2. The High Court held that the Tribunal's 2007 order was liable to be set aside solely on the grounds of jurisdictional error. The Court did not delve into the broader issue of whether the Tribunal had the power to review its own judgments and orders. However, the appellant cited a Madras High Court decision to argue against the Tribunal having such review powers. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the 2007 order and upholding the 1998 order as valid. The respondent was granted the option to pursue appropriate proceedings against the 1998 order, emphasizing that the High Court's decision was based on jurisdictional grounds rather than a merit-based review.

3. The High Court concluded the judgment by answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant and against the respondent. The 2007 order was set aside, affirming the validity of the 1998 order. The Court clarified that this decision did not prevent the respondent from challenging the 1998 order through proper legal channels. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.