9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 846 - HC - CustomsRectification application - mistake apparent on the face of record - invocation of power u/s 129B of the CA 1962 - HELD THAT - There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order, as in any case the appeals are to be reheard now on merits. It would be still open to the petitioner to canvass before the Tribunal as to how this matter is covered by the judgment of Delhi High Court in M/S MANGALI IMPEX LTD., M/S PACE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT and therefore was required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. If the Tribunal is persuaded, in that event, it would be passing order on merits of the case rather than on the basis of consent of the parties. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenging order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rectification application allowed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur to issue notice under Section 18(2) of the Act - Recall of final order for rehearing of appeals on merits - Consent given by authorized representative of the department - Applicability of judgments in support of Tribunal's view - Interference with impugned order - Rehearing of appeals on merits - Dismissal of writ petition. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which allowed the rectification application under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's order did not reflect a mistake apparent on the face of the record as it required a detailed discussion to identify the alleged mistake. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, a point not addressed in a previous judgment. The Tribunal, however, provided detailed reasons for its decision, highlighting that crucial facts regarding the jurisdiction issue were not brought to its attention during the appeals. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support its conclusion that the matter needed to be reheard on merits due to the consent given by the department's representative against the record. The High Court, after considering the submissions and reviewing the Tribunal's order, found no valid reason to interfere with the decision, especially since the appeals were to be reheard on merits. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could still argue before the Tribunal regarding the applicability of the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the necessity for remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Court clarified that the Tribunal's future decision should be based on the case's merits rather than solely on the parties' consent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and a stay application was also dismissed. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the rectification application and emphasized the importance of rehearing the appeals on their merits. The Court highlighted the need for a thorough consideration of the jurisdictional issues and the applicability of relevant judgments in reaching a final decision. The dismissal of the writ petition signified the Court's endorsement of the Tribunal's reasoning and the requirement for a comprehensive review of the case during the rehearing process.
|
