9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant-petitioner before the Tribunal was in substance an application to rectify the mistakes made in the order and not a simplicitor application for recalling the order of dismissal of an appeal by default. 2. The facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are an Order-in-Original dated 19th December, 2008 was made in which it was recorded, inter alia, that : "It is further submitted that late Sri Maram Lakhmi Narayana was the proprietor of the firm. Since he is no more, penalty cannot be imposed in this case inasmuch as he was responsible for all the activities of his firm. In Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition, "proprietorship" has been defined as under :- "A business which is owned by a person who has either the legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Sri Satya Murthy had taken over the firm. He made effort to retrieve records and documents for the material period and on the basis of such records and documents and whatsoever information could be recovered. A reply was prepared and submitted to the department on 9-9-2008." The said appeal was verified on 24th April, 2009 by the writ petitioner No. 2, M. Madhu Murthy. It was submitted by Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, on instruction from his client present in Court, the writ petitioner No. 2 and not Sri Satya Murthy is the eldest son of the deceased noticee. 5. Before any steps could be taken for hearing of the appeal, the appellant had filed an application, verified by the writ petitioner No. 2, on 26th November, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of appeal in the facts and circumstances had committed an error which required procedural review, which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal, to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it. He, therefore, submitted the Tribunal by its order dated 4th March, 2014 in dismissing the miscellaneous application of the appellant for recalling of the order dated 25th April, 2011 had refused to exercise such inherent power conferred under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 7. Mr. Saraf, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted the order dated 25th April, 2011 was made under Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (supra) had held, "The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal." By a later judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) the said Court also held, "Quite apart from the inherent power that every Tribunal and Court constituted to do justice has in this respect, CEGAT is clothed with express power under Rule 41 to make such order as is necessary to secure the ends of justice. CEGAT has, therefore, the power to set aside an order passed ex parte against the respondent before it if it is found that the respondent had, for sufficient cause, been unable to appear." 10. We find the orders impugned in the writ petition being orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
