2016 (8) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al’s order has risen to invoke Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Therefore, recalling the appeal dismissed as withdrawn earlier would be abuse of the process of law when the appellant has exercised its own choice to withdraw the appeal without leave being granted by the Tribunal for mention in future - ROM application dismissed. - C/41033/2013-DB - Misc. Order Nos. 40408-40409/2016 - Dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi - AIR 1969 SC 430 and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Padiyur Sarvodaya Sangh v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 441 (Tri. - Chennai). 3. Revenue s contention is that after the appeal is disposed, Tribunal has become functus offiicio. 4. Heard both sides and perused .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of appellant is also a case where there was question on power of Tribunal under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. But that was on a different context. We may make it clear that Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has a wider ambit than the appellate jurisdiction of Tribunal, which is a creation of the statute. Rule 41 deals with the situation where Tribunal s order is to be given e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X