9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Tube Products v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.) = 1989 (25) ECR 261 (CEGAT SB-A). 2. Having a brief resume of the proceedings so far as the same is necessary for the purpose of deciding the present application, the applicants Nos. 2 to 6, as Letters of Authority holders of some REP licences, imported Alkyl Benzene, and sought clearance of 800.00 MT of said Benzene, for home consumption by producing 15 REP licences, duly endorsed in terms of Para 138(13) of the Import Policy AM 1983-84. The Intelligence Wing of the Customs, however, suspected the genuineness of those licences and hence sought clarification from the licensing authority who confirmed the said suspicion and informed them that the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled by the competent authority and all imports till their cancellation ought to have been allowed. This Bench has vide its order No. 353-358/90 - WRB dated 3-2-1990 has rejected the said applications, where distinction has been made in the facts before the Special Bench of the Tribunal and the facts before us. 4. Shri Pochhkhanawalla, the ld. Advocate appearing for all the applicants here, initially adhered to the prayer made in the memo of this application and submitted that the appellants wanted a review of the order passed by this Bench in the appeals. However, when a pointed question was put to him as to the powers of this Bench to review its earlier order, he conceded that the law has not invested the powers of review in the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In his submission, distinction made by this Bench while disposing of the Reference Applications was also not proper. He further submitted that the Special Bench has based its conclusion on the same set of judicial pronouncements over which he had placed reliance while arguing the appeals before this Bench and when interpretation thereof, by a Larger Bench was already in existence, since prior to the impugned decision of this Bench, it was not open to this Bench to take any different view, and for that purpose, he referred to and relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Another, reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 521 (Del.) = 1990 (26) ECR 483 (Delhi). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings there, the applicants have desired to pursue this review, converted to rectification application, some of the points have to be re-iterated. The basic factual distinction between the two is that in the case before the Special Bench, the licence under consideration was a validly issued licence, which was obtained by a fraudulent mis-representation, whereas here, after the licences were obtained, there were interpolations made, by some party other than the licensing authority and an entry was made in those licences, making it appear that some items which otherwise were not permissible under the Import Policy then in force, were permitted to be imported under those licences. The Special Bench, has, in Para 20 of its order, clearly held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the instant case, the item imported is such for which REP licences, but for the subsequent interpolation made, could not have been produced, to seek clearance for home consumption. 8. When the decision of the Special Bench is entirely on different set of facts, and when the licences under consideration there could not be equated with the licences here, and when the licences obtained by fraud and licences fraudulently interpolated subsequent to issue cannot be treated at par, the ratio of the decision of Special Bench cannot stand attracted. 9. The genus of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the applicants is the Special Bench decision in Re : Steel Tube Products (supra), and when the said is held as not applicable here, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sec. 129B save as otherwise provided in Sec. 130 or Sec. 130E, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. From this legal position it is clear that the Tribunal on its own or on application made by the other parties cannot review its own finding. Either party can challenge it on a point of law and seek for a reference to be made as per the provisions of Sec. 130 of the Customs Act. In the classification and valuation matters, an appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal lies to the Supreme Court. In this case, as already indicated, the applicants moved Reference Applications which were considered in detail by this Bench and rejected by the Bench s order dated 2-3-1990. Hence the only provision unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
