9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities for redressal. In the absence of prejudice, seeking a rectification of our order on the ground of non-consideration of submissions is not without impropriety. We do not wish to dilate further on this transgression - ROM application dismissed. - C/MA(Ors.)-93470, 93534, 93528 to 93533, 93535 to 93539/2016, C/777 to 783, 785, 787, 790 to 791, 793 to 795/2006 - M/87604-87616/17/CB - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Applicant - Represented by: Mr. M K Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (AR) Respondents - Represented by: Mr. J H Motwani, Advocate ORDER Per: C J Mathew This application for rectification of mistake apparent on the record pertains to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay, by order dated 11 th August 2014, directed restoration of appeal against order-in-original no.CC (MKG)/05/2006 ADJ ACC dated 29 th March 2006 subject to compliance with the original order of pre-deposit and on payment of cost of ₹ 50,000. Applications for restoration of the other two appeals were also filed with the commitment to comply with the pre-deposit terms as directed by the Tribunal. During the pendency of these applications, the pre-deposit of ₹ 9,00,000 pertaining to the appeal against order-in-original dated 4 th April 2006 was also effected. Mrs. Parimala Singh made a further payment of ₹ 20,00,000 on 22 nd February 2006 being the pre-deposit pertaining to her appeal against order-in-original dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als. 6. While recall having been ruled out, we deal with the various errors listed in this application by the applicant-Commissioner. 7. The first of these contends that the restoration is not consistent with the order of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay which was concerned with only five out of the fifteen appeals. There is no dispute that, in relation to the appeals against the order-in-original dated 29 th March 2006, the restoration is entirely in order. There is also no doubt that this restoration flows from the directions issued by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay. While the Tribunal is bound by such directions, the statute does not restrict restoration of appeals only to such as are directed by the higher courts; there is no f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions of pre-deposit and that lifting of the attachment would enable her to fulfil the pre-deposit condition of the others in the four appeals against the order-in-original dated 31 st March 2006. 10. It is contended that the various submissions made by Learned Authorised Representative during the hearing for restoration of appeals had not been considered while passing the order. As we have pointed out supra, the disposal of the applications was restricted to restoration and was not a final determination of the appeal against the orders impugned before us. Within the limited scope of disposal of the application for restoration, we are not required to consider each and every submission. The dismissal of the appeals was on the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
