9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bvious, placing reliance in the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - ROM filed by the applicant lack in sufficient force and merit - ROM dismissed. - C/ROA/10348/2016, C/ROM/10349/2016 And C/353/2007 - M/10036-10037/2017 - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) For Appellant (s) : Shri Anuj K Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative Per: Mr. Ashok K Arya The applicant namely M/s Fairdeal Supplies Pvt Ltd has filed two miscellaneous applications namely ROM Application No. 10349/2016 and ROA Application No. 10348/2016. 2. The applicant has been represented by the Ld. Advocate, Shri Anu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trong case on merits and therefore the present application is required to be allowed in the interest of justice. 5. We have carefully considered the facts on record and the submissions on the subject of both the sides. 6. The applicant namely M/s Fairdeal Supplies Pvt Ltd., Kolkata imported coking coal of Chinese origin at Pipavav port and filed 4 bills of entry in July and August 2002 to clear the said consignments. In case of the said import consignments ash content was declared less than 12 percent and exemption under the Customs Notification No. 21/2002 was claimed. It was observed by the ACC that the two test results for the consignments confirmed that the ash content was more than 12 percent, therefore, the applicant-assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bench of this Tribunal consisting of President, Shri Justice G. Raghuram and Member (Technical), Shri P. M. Saleem decided the appeal based on the appeal memorandum and submissions of both sides, it cannot be stated that the appeal has been decided without considering the submissions and grounds of the appellant. The continuous absence of the appellant and their representative during the hearings does not grant them any absolute right for granting restoration of their appeal, especially so when the bench of this Tribunal consisting of Hon ble President and the Member (Technical) arrived at a reasoned decision vide Order No. A/10121/2016 dated 23.02.2016. 7.1.1. Further when the matter has already been decided on merits, at this stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to it. When the Tribunal already examined the facts and the submissions of both sides including the test reports to arrive at the reasoned conclusion on the applicability of Notification No. 21/2002, there is no scope for acceptance of ROM, Application filed by the appellant-applicant. The provision of Section 129 (b) (2) of the Customs Act, 1962[similar to Section 35 C (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944] providing power of rectification of mistake to this Tribunal however does not empower the Tribunal power of review . In this case acceptance of ROM application filed by the applicant would amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 129 (b)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7.2.3. Thus in the light of above, it is clear that this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
