9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awla, Advs. A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) 1. It is not necessary to discuss the merits of the case as we are concerned with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal restoring the appeal of the respondent herein filed before the Tribunal on deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores which payment was directed to be deposited as condition precedent for hearing the appeal. 2. We may note at the outset that these appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion with the order of the pre-deposit not complied with. The revenue/appellant has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos. 609/2006, 610/2006 and 611/2006. On the information received by DRI that the consignees at Russia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rs.2.5 Crores within eight weeks as against the demand of Rs.22 Crores. For compliance, the matter was fixed for 5th March, 2007. The respondents did not comply with the aforesaid directions which resulted in the dismissal of the appeals. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals, the appellants approached this Court challenging the said orders. The appeals of the appellants were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court with the following concluded remarks: Against the order requiring the Appellants to refund the drawback amount, they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which as already noticed required them to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores as a condition for hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are making a pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores as ordered, they should not be denied the opportunity to get the appeals heard on merits. This order is subject matter of challenge in the present appeals which are admitted on the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether the learned CESTAT has got jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 to restore the appeals dismissed by it four years ago, by reviewing its order particularly when the order passed by the CESTAT has merged with the order passed by the High Court in Appeal No. CUS A No.15/2007 which has attained finality? b) Whether the impugned order is non-est being passed by the learned CESTAT in exercising its powers under Section 129 of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is shown, at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Customs or the other party to the appeal: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
