9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in line with the pronouncement made in the open Court and gist of the decision recorded and signed on 04.6.2009 in Appeal No. C/07/2009, was allowed, the Department has come up with the present appeal. 2. From the materials, it is seen that the appeal filed by the first respondent, a private company, in Appeal No. C7/2009 before the second respondent Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'Appellate Tribunal'] as against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai dated 10.11.2008, was posted for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 04.6.2009 and after hearing the detailed arguments from both sides, the Appellate Tribunal pronounced the order in the open Court allowing the appeal and the gist of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt without dictating any reasoned order and such an oral order announced in open Court but not followed by a detailed written order giving reasons, is not a valid order in the eye of law. He further submitted that the note dated 22.6.2009 given by the Technical Member for re-hearing of the appeal was accepted by the Vice President (Judicial Member) and, therefore, prayed for interference of this Court and also sought for direction to the Tribunal to rehear the appeal as gist of the order was not passed by it on 04.6.2009. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that once the operative portion / gist of the decision finally pronounced in the open Court after hearing the arguments and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dates will be the date of the order." 8. In the case on hand, though the order was pronounced in the open Court on 04.6.2009 as "Appeal allowed" and last hearing date was recorded as 04.6.2009, an endorsement has been made by the Vice-President to the Member (Technical) to the effect "for orders please" from which it is clear that the matter was entrusted to the Member (Technical) for drafting a detailed order. It is evident from page 18 of the typed set that both the Vice-President and the Member (Technical) have signed on 04.6.2009 while pronouncing the decision. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that 04.6.2009 is the last date of hearing. 9. We are satisfied that the circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in consonance with gist of the decision pronounced, recorded, signed and dated in open Court on 04.6.2009. 14. When the Bench posed question to the learned counsel for the first respondent with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself, he submitted that the High Courts in India are superior courts of record and they have original and appellate jurisdiction. According to him, unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. It is his further submission that in view of the fact that the High Court has all inherent and plenary power, the Writ Petition file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Virlon case is that the cap of 50% of FOB value for benefit of Not. No. 2/95 CE did not apply and hence though there were no exports, benefit of 2/95 CE was available to DTA clearances which was denied by the Commissioner in the order impugned. It appears that ratio of Virlon is that 50% cap applied to DTA sales under para 9(b) of Policy; such cap did not apply to DTA sales against foreign exchange; other supplies of para 10(b) of Policy. Policy prescribed cap only in respect of 9(b) sales; such restriction was not there in Policy in para 10(b). Court did not overrule the cap of 50% of FOB value in respect of DTA sales against Indian rupee prescribed in 2/95 CE. We may rehear." 18. In the above extracted order, the Vice-Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has disposed of the matter finally, the Tribunal renders itself functus officio in relation to such matter and cannot suo moto recall the final order and interfere therein. Therefore, question of refixing of the matter in question does not arise." 21. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, if, for any reason, the matter is kept pending after pronouncement of the result or gist of the judgment, for giving a reasoned order by the Member (Technical), he should have taken up the matter at the first instance. Instead, the Member (Technical) took a different view and vide internal note dated 22.6.2009, posted the matter for re-hearing on 30.6.2009. 22. In view of the above legal position, we hold that the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
