9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is an application purporting to be one for rectification of mistake of the order of the Tribunal dated 3-2-1987 in SRSB Order No. 67/1987. Shri Srinivasan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the appeal had been filed in the Special Bench, CEGAT at New Delhi and a Stay Petition No. 1075/83-B had also been filed before the Special B-Bench. Because of the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Special Bench and not by the South Regional Bench. In other words, it was contended even for non-deposit of a Special Bench appeal, it is only the Special Bench that would have jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal under Sec. 129E of the Act and not the Regional Bench. The impugned order of the Tribunal, therefore, suffers from mistake ex facie on grounds of jurisdictional error and since jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to how the petitioner participated in the Special Bench appeal before the South Regional Bench and argued the matter resulting in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It may be noted that the South Regional Bench has not gone into the question of classification or rate of duty in dismissing the appeal. The dismissal of the appeal is a short and simple one under Sec. 129E for admitted non-deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rprised at the casualness with which the entire matter is being dealt with by the appellant which happens to be a Public Sector Organisation notwithstanding the fact that a substantial sum of money is involved. We cannot help observing that a Public Sector Organisation like the Appellant has lost a valuable right of appeal by sheer laches on its part. We do not find any jurisdictional error at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
