9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority. In support of this submission, the appellant has filed an affidavit of the advocate as well as the Sr. Executive of the appellant-company. In the affidavit of Mr. Somanathan. V. M., Sr. Executive of the appellant-company, the appellant has stated that they have filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. Along with appeal, an interlocutory application for stay of operation of the order impugned was also filed. The Tribunal vide stay order No.20868/2015 dated 30.4.2015 dismissed the stay order for non-prosecution and the entire dues were directed to be deposited within eight weeks therefrom and to report compliance on 13.7.2015. In the order dated 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at his request. Further, to his surprise it was served with an order dated 30.4.2015 dismissing the stay application for non-prosecution. Subsequently on 13.7.2015, advocate Mr. Arjun appeared and apprised the Tribunal of the circumstances in which the stay petition came to be dismissed and prayed for two days' time to have the petition for setting aside the order of dismissal brought up for consideration. The Tribunal rejected the request of the representing counsel and proceeded to dismiss the appeal itself vide Final Order No.21545/2015 dated 13.7.2015. The Deponent has further stated in the affidavit that there was no willful laches or negligence on the part of the appellant or his counsel and there was no effective appearance before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also to recall the stay order dated 30.4.2015. She further submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record in either the stay order or in the final order passed by the Tribunal. She also submitted that it is a settled position of law that there is no provision to modify the stay order by the Hon'ble Tribunal as the same would amount to review of its own order and in support of her submission, she relied upon the following authorities: i. CCE, Bangalore-II vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd.: 2005 (186) ELT 145 (Kar.) ii. Baron International Ltd. vs. UOI : 2004 (163) ELT 150 (Bom.) iii. International Air Charter Operations: 2010 (256) ELT 123 (Tri.-Del.) iv. Batteries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2010 (253) ELT 801 (Tri.-Bang.) v. Planet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed for non-compliance. Thereafter the present application for rectification of mistake has been filed along with the affidavit. Primarily stating that there was no intentional default on the part of the appellant but we also find that there was no mistake apparent in the order dated 13.7.2015 and if we recall the order dated 13.7.2015, it would tantamount to review of our own order which is not permitted as per the various decisions cited by the learned AR for the department. Therefore keeping in view the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we do not find any merit in the application seeking rectification of mistake and the same is dismissed.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 06/01/2017.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
