9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Senior Counsel for the appellants (present applicants) was not present on that day. Her junior prayed for adjournment of hearing on a ground which we have noted in our order dated 19-4-2004. After considering the said ground and other aspects of the case, we granted adjournment of hearing, but on condition that an amount of Rs. 1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only) each be paid by the two applicants for the purpose of Section 129E of the Customs Act. In the present applications, it is stated to the effect that the applicants are incapable of depositing the amount. It is further stated that their Senior Counsel happened to be absent before the Bench on 19-4-2004 on account of her pre-occupation with some High Court case. These grounds, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by this Tribunal cannot be recalled unless it falls within the ambit of any of the four factual situations enumerated in the judgment of the Apex Court. In her rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the parties seeks to distinguish the case of Budhia Swain (supra). She submits that the said case dealt with powers of only courts working under the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. We have given careful consideration to the rival arguments. At the outset, we may state that the reason given in the present applications, for non-appearance of the Senior Counsel on 19-4-2004 is glaringly at variance with that stated by her junior on that day. Nevertheless, in a broader view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the submissions made today b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced earlier in this order, for Courts as well as tribunals in the matter of recalling ex parte orders. The norm mentioned at (iii) above indicates that the Tribunal may recall an order earlier made by it if there has been a mistake of the Tribunal prejudicing a party. The tenor of the present applications and the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel representing them is that our condition for deposit of Rs. 1.00 crore each has prejudiced them. In view of these aspects, it cannot be said that the present matter does not fall in the realm of the aforesaid norms set by the Apex Court in the case cited by learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue. We have noticed that our order dated 19-4-2004, which was consequential to a default of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
