1989 (4) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Recall of Tribunal Order No. 205/1988 dated 12-4-1988.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the Tribunal to set aside its own order.
3. Alleged violation of natural justice.
4. Relevance of cited judgments to the present case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recall of Tribunal Order No. 205/1988 dated 12-4-1988:

The petitioner filed an application under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, seeking to recall the Tribunal's order No. 205/1988. The Tribunal had disposed of Customs Appeal Nos. 487 to 489/1987 on merits, in the absence of the petitioner, who was the respondent in the said appeals. The petitioner argued that despite receiving the hearing notice and not specifically asking for an adjournment, he had sent a communication to the Registry on 16-3-88 seeking a copy of the appeal petition, which should have prompted the Tribunal to adjourn the appeal and provide an opportunity for a hearing.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the Tribunal to Set Aside Its Own Order:

The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to review its own orders, as it is a creature of statute. The power of review must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The Tribunal referenced several authoritative pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, which held that no quasi-judicial authority can review its own order unless expressly conferred by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Tribunal also cited the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Ram Chandra v. Beero Pollai and the Mysore High Court in Sampu Gowda v. State of Mysore, which reiterated that the power of review is not inherent and must be specifically provided for.

3. Alleged Violation of Natural Justice:

The Tribunal found no merit in the petitioner's contention of a violation of natural justice. The records showed that the petitioner was duly served with the notice of hearing and a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal well in advance. The petitioner did not appear for the hearing on 12-4-1988 nor sought any adjournment. The Tribunal noted that if the petitioner had not received the copy of the appeal petition, he had ample time (about five months) to raise a grievance, which he did not. The Tribunal concluded that there was no breach of natural justice as the petitioner had been given due notice and opportunity.

4. Relevance of Cited Judgments to the Present Case:

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi and the Kerala High Court ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-IV v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Another. However, the Tribunal found these cases inapplicable to the present context. In Mohammed Kunhi's case, the issue was whether the power to entertain an appeal included the power to grant stay, which is ancillary to appellate jurisdiction. The Kerala High Court's ruling was based on the premise that an ex parte order passed without conforming to natural justice could be set aside. However, in the present case, the petitioner had been duly notified and failed to appear or seek an adjournment, thus not justifying the setting aside of the order on grounds of natural justice.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner had no justification for seeking to set aside the order dated 12-4-1988. The Tribunal's order was passed on merits after due notice and opportunity were given to the petitioner. The Tribunal reiterated that it lacked the power to review its own orders and that the petitioner's plea was without merit. The petition was accordingly rejected.

← Previous Next →