2008 (3) TMI 105 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application has been filed by the Revenue tribunal vacated the penalty on ground that revenue has not shown any proof of actual delivery of the Show Cause Notice/addendum to the appellant - at the time of hearing fact that GPA holder received the addendum not informed to the Bench - in the interest of justice, we feel that the case should be decided after giving a further hearing - ROM is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake application under Section 129B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the Final Order No. 279/2007 dated 8-2-2007 passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake Application by Revenue:
The Revenue filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application challenging the Final Order passed by the Tribunal due to the absence of proof of actual delivery of the Show Cause Notice/addendum to the appellant. The Revenue argued that an acknowledgment was given to the Superintendent of Customs by the GPA holder, indicating the receipt of the addendum and the original show cause notice. The Revenue contended that the claim of non-service by the appellant was false, supported by a notarized letter empowering the GPA holder, hence requesting a re-examination of the appeal.

2. Submission by the Learned Advocate:
During the hearing before the Tribunal, the learned advocate for the appellant, M/s. Guru Electronics, stated that there was no evidence of the service of the show cause notice to the company. This submission highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the delivery of the notice to the concerned party.

3. Decision and Recall of Final Order:
After careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged that the fact of the GPA holder receiving the addendum was not informed during the initial hearing. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to recall the final order and allow a further hearing to consider this crucial piece of information. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Rectification of Mistake application, setting a new hearing date of 8-5-2008 and issuing notices to all concerned parties for a fair and just decision. This decision was made to ensure that all relevant evidence and arguments are considered before reaching a final judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to recall the final order and allow a further hearing based on the new evidence presented through the Rectification of Mistake application demonstrates a commitment to upholding principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings. The acknowledgment of the GPA holder receiving the addendum plays a significant role in re-examining the case and ensuring a thorough consideration of all relevant facts before reaching a final decision.