9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication. 2. S/Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar, Naveen Kumar and Dakshina Murthy, learned Advocates appeared for the applicants. It was submitted that the above mentioned Final Order has been passed ex parte. The appellants shifted to a new place in Mumbai and consequently their address mentioned in the cause title also changed. They intimated the postal authorities about the change of address on 9-9-2003 and requested the postal authority to deliver the letter addressed to the applicants to their new address. The Tribunal disposed of the stay application filed against Adjudication Order No. 5/2003-04 dated 3-2-2004 vide Stay Order No. 497/2005 dated 17-6-2005 granting full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty. The above mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 (152) E.L.T. 384 (T) (iv) Bellevue Clinic v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Kolkata, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 120 The following decisions of the Apex Court have also not been considered :- (i) LML v. CCE, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) (ii) Kiran Spinning Mills v. CC., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) (iii) U.O.I. v. Apar Pvt Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) The Tribunal has wide powers to recall ex parte order. The following case laws are relied on :- (a) J.K. Synthetics, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) (b) Grindlays Bank v. CGIT, AIR 1981 (S.C.) 606 (c) Mohd. Naseem v. C.C., 1997 (94) E.L.T. 525 (T) (d) Ram Kirpal v. U.O.I, 1998 (103) E.L.T. 8 (Guj) (e) Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. ACCE, 1994 (7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinting Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal) (c) Kirtilal Kalidas Diamond Exporters v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 251 (Tribunal) 4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Since the applicant has stated that they received the Final Order No. 1887/2005 dated 11-11-2005 [2006 (195) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Bang.)] only from the Registry CESTAT, Bangalore on 20-4-2006 and took steps to instruct the Counsel and filed a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order on 24-5-2006, they were not in a position to file the application for recall within 30 days of receiving the Final Order of the Tribunal. They further stated that they have filed an application within 35 days from the date of recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, for recalling the order they have stated that they had informed the postal authority to deliver the letters addressed to the applicant to their new address. In that connection, they have enclosed a copy of their letter dated 9-9-2003 addressed to the Postmaster, Andheri (West), Mumbai. It is not understood how that letter is relevant, for the simple reason that the letter dated 9-9-2003 has been filed much before their filing of the appeal before the CESTAT. The address given in that letter is different from the address mentioned in the CA-3 application. In any case, what is the use of that letter and how is it going to help the applicant in establishing a strong ground for recalling the Tribunal s Final Order? The fact remains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
