9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -7-1997. The applicant filed a Misc. application for modification of the stay order. The Misc. application for modification of the stay order was rejected. The applicant, however, was given a further time of 12 weeks to make a pre-deposit and to report compliance. The applicant did not make the pre-deposit and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant has now filed the petition stating that since a mistake has crept in, in the Tribunal's order, the same may be rectified. 3. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri A.K. Jain, ld. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.D. Steel and Traders v. U.O.I. reported in 1998 (103) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 571 observed. 8. In the instant case before us, it may be mentioned that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which was relied on by the Tribunal in its order dated 16-11-1987 was reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 497 and the Division Bench, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge on 14-8-1985. Evidently, the Calcutta High Court could not have taken note of the changes in the wording of the Tariff Entry 22A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule in 1972 and 1977. On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which was delivered in 1987 has considered the changes and the period of dispute in the present appeal is from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. The tariff entry underwent some changes in 1972 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 ruled that - 29. As we have already noticed in the earlier stage of the judgment, the notice issued by the respondent charges the appellants thus - One of the conditions of the special licence was that the goods would be utilised for consumption as raw material or accessories in the factory of the licence holder and no part thereof would be sold to other parties, but in contravention of that condition the appellants sold a part of the goods imported to a third party; and as the goods had been caused to be issued by fraudulent misrepresentation, they were liable to be confiscated under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act". Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act can be invoked only if an order issued u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise, there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer. We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. If that be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction . Ld. Counsel therefore, submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertainly an error apparent in the face of the record. He cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC. 526. Ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the above submissions, the ROM may be allowed and the appeal may be listed for hearing. 6. Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel Shri V.M. Udhoji along with Shri K. Srivastava, ld. DR submits that the scope of an application for rectification of mistake is based on mistake apparent on the record. He submits that in the instant case, there is no mistake apparent on the record. Ld. DR submits that the mistake is in the nature of argument and that such a mistake cannot be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. He submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusive and there was no option for petitioner but to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal; that admittedly, it did not do so inspite of long time having elapsed and Tribunal having adjourned the matter more than once even after the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. The Tribunal was therefore, left with no option but to dismiss the appeal because Section 35F barred entertaining the appeal unless the deposit was made. The Tribunal's order, therefore, is only in accordance with law and no case of interference under Article 226 is made out. Ld. DR submitted that in the case of Navin Chander Chhotelal relied upon by the applicants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that although Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
