9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly no occasion for taking up such appeal for reconsideration. It is obvious that such taking up of the Appeal was a result of miscommunication. It is obvious that the factum of disposal of the Appeal by order dated 10th July, 1998 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, either by the SDR or the staff of the Tribunal - Impugned order set aside. It is not necessary to go into the larger issue as to whether the Tribunal has any power to review its own Judgments and orders. However, we must note that Ms. Desai did place reliance upon the decision of the CP. AQUACULTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRESIDENT, CESTAT [ 2010 (11) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] to submit that the Tribunal is not vested with any such power of review. The sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the submission made, we find that this Bench of the Tribunal has while dealing with the similar issue of M/s Archana International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in its Final Order No. 3820/97 WZB dt.22.9.97 held that fine of 100% of the assessable value will be appropriated in these cases. The Tribunal has also held that a penalty in these cases of about 10% of the value would be appropriate. The issue in these appeals is only in respect of the quantum of fine on the goods and penalty on the Respondents importers. The M/s Archana International decision of this Tribunal provides reasonable guide lines in this matter which we are inclined to follow. Accordingly we are of the view that the Departments plea for enhancing the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 10th July, 1998, by which date, the appeal was finally disposed of. It is possible, as contended by Ms. Desai, that the SDR was unaware of the order dated 10th July, 1998, made almost 9 years earlier. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, on this occasion, dismissed the Appellant's appeal by the impugned order dated 19th April, 2007. Hence, the present Appeal by the Appellant herein. 7. From the records, it is obvious that very taking up the Appeal No.C/841/1997 by the Tribunal on 19th April, 2007 was an exercise in excess of jurisdiction. Since the Appeal had already been disposed of by the order dated 10th July, 1998, there was really no occasion for taking up such appeal for reconsideration. It is obvious that such tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
