2013 (10) TMI 808 - AT - Customs

Recalling of order - Held that - There is no scope to recall the order when the appellant has again abused the process of law by the present Miscellaneous Application and failing to appear to explain his case and has simply tried to explain his conduct from the outcome of the vigilance inquiry. We make clear that conclusion of one court does not bind to other court for no provision in law in that regard. Therefore, Customs Act, 1962 deals with consequence on its own merit without mechanical adoption of vigilance inquiry observations. If the present application is entertained it shall amount to review of the order dated 10/1/13 which is not permissible in law. Tribunal having no power to review and it become functus officio after passing of the application, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissal on merit, recall of order, abuse of process of law, vigilance inquiry observations, review of order, power of Tribunal to review

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on merit, followed by a request for the recall of the order. The appellant challenged the initial order, which was passed ex-parte, through a miscellaneous application citing the absence of their lawyer. The Tribunal acknowledged the lawyer's absence but noted that the appellant had abused the process of law by failing to appear to explain their case adequately. The Tribunal highlighted that the conclusion of one court does not bind another court, emphasizing that the Customs Act, 1962 deals with consequences independently of vigilance inquiry observations. The Tribunal concluded that entertaining the present application would amount to a review of the previous order, which is impermissible in law. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that it has no power to review and becomes functus officio after passing an order, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application.

In this judgment, the Tribunal addressed the issue of recalling an order after an appeal was dismissed on merit. The appellant sought to recall the order based on the absence of their lawyer during the initial proceedings. The Tribunal considered the appellant's reasoning but ultimately concluded that the appellant had abused the process of law by not adequately participating in the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962 operates independently of vigilance inquiry observations, highlighting that the present application for recall would amount to a review of the previous order, which is beyond the Tribunal's power. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, underscoring that it has no authority to review its orders once passed.

The judgment also delved into the issue of the Tribunal's power to review its orders. The Tribunal clarified that it does not have the authority to review its decisions and becomes functus officio after passing an order. By dismissing the Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal reaffirmed its position that it cannot entertain requests for a review once a decision has been made. This aspect of the judgment underscores the limitations on the Tribunal's power to revisit and alter its rulings, emphasizing the finality of its decisions once issued.