9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o years. In this case, even assuming that the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Shree Govinddeo Glass Works Ltd [2010 (10) TMI 750 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] is correct, the Tribunal could not have done anything in the light of the fact that the conditional order of the Tribunal passed originally in 2009 got modified by an order of the learned Judge of this Court and it was confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, even if the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court is accepted by the Tribunal to reflect the correct position in law, the Tribunal could not have modified the order passed by this Court. Once a conditional order passed by the Tribunal attains a finality, the same cannot be annulled after a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire anti dumping duty. 4. As against the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition. By an order dated 12.11.2009 passed in W.P.No.23063 of 2009, a learned Judge of this Court modified the pre-deposit order and reduced the amount to be paid to ₹ 75 lakhs, which is almost 1/3rd of what the Tribunal had ordered. 5. The said order of the learned Judge was taken on appeal to the Division Bench and the Division Bench originally granted a stay on 12.1.2010 in W.A.No.30 of 2010 directing the Tribunal not to dismiss the appeal until further orders. The said writ appeal was subsequently dismissed by a judgment dated 31.7.2013 by the Division Bench. The relevant portions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come up with the above appeal. 7. The above narration of facts would show that the original conditional order passed by the Tribunal was on 7.9.2009. It stood modified by an order of the learned Judge of this Court in a writ petition, passed on 12.11.2009. That order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench on 31.7.2013. 8. Without any effort on the part of the appellant, the appeal somehow survived before the Tribunal without getting formally dismissed as a consequence of non compliance with the conditional order. Thereafter, nearly after two years, the appeal surfaced at the instance of the Revenue, when an application for early hearing was filed. Even when the application for early hearing was moved, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once a law is declared by the Supreme Court, it shall be deemed to be the law that was always in force and that therefore, when an application for rectification is filed, the concerned Authority was obliged to correct the error. The Supreme Court held that the assessment made on the basis of wrong appreciation of law, after the law is declared by the Supreme Court, could always be corrected as an error apparent on the face of the record. 12. But, in the case on hand, the order impugned in the appeal is an order consequential to the failure of the appellant to comply with the conditional order. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue was kept alive by the appellant, hardly merits any acceptance. Without any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon two decisions, one of the Karnataka High Court and another of the Calcutta High Court. 16. In M.I.Metal Sections P.Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [(1995) 75 ELT 470], the Karnataka High Court pointed out that if an assessee fails to comply with the conditional order, the Tribunal should list the appeal for hearing. On that date, it would be open to the assessee to raise a plea that due to financial difficulties or other circumstances beyond its control, it could not comply with the order. Once such a plea is raised, the Tribunal can always consider the same and pass an order on merits either accepting or rejecting. 17. In the next decision in CCE Vs. Shree Govinddeo Glass Works Ltd. [(2011) 263 ELT 178], ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say for instance even nearly after two years. In this case, even assuming that the ratio laid down by the Calcutta High Court is correct, the Tribunal could not have done anything in the light of the fact that the conditional order of the Tribunal passed originally in 2009 got modified by an order of the learned Judge of this Court and it was confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, even if the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court is accepted by the Tribunal to reflect the correct position in law, the Tribunal could not have modified the order passed by this Court. 19. Once a conditional order passed by the Tribunal attains a finality, the same cannot be annulled after a consequential order is passed. The conditional order was ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
