9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- These applications seeking rectification of mistake are misconceived. The appellants were represented by a learned counsel who made submissions on their behalf. Needless to say, that when a learned counsel makes submissions, the court has to presume those to be on the instructions of the appellants. After arguing the appeal on merits and partly succeeding and partly failing in the appeal, the appellant then decided to hire a new counsel to find fault with the submissions made by the previous counsel and further alleging that this Tribunal committed a mistake in proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the previous counsel. It is also incorrect to say that this Tribunal did not follow the direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 023 whereby the appeals were decided on merits and were partly allowed and partly rejected. Neither the appellants nor the department pressed the question of jurisdiction nor made any submissions on it. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Final Order are reproduced below: These two appeals were originally remanded by this Tribunal by Final Order dated 21.6.2017 along with twenty more appeals to the original authority for a fresh decision in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. vs UOI 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del) setting aside the retrospective applicability of section 28(11) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] which judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court 2016(339) ELT A.49 (SC). The original authority was directed by the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that in paragraph 3 of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 8.11.2023 it is recorded that the parties wanted to argue the matter on merits and the question of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN was not argued. However, the applications state that the applicant who is a cancer patient for 17 years was not aware of the fact that the counsel for the applicant/appellant had foregone to raise the question of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN. The application further states that in the absence of the decision of the Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction, the applicant is remedy-less to challenge the order of Tribunal to such an extent before the Higher Court. 3. Therefore, the submission in the applications is that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid directions of the High Court. Insofar as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it can only be passed based on the arguments and submissions made by both sides. Since neither side made submissions the question of jurisdiction and only argued the question on merits, it was decided accordingly. 5. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. We find that these applications seeking rectification of mistake are misconceived. The appellants were represented by a learned counsel who made submissions on their behalf. Needless to say, that when a learned counsel makes submissions, the court has to presume those to be on the instructions of the appellants. After arguing the appeal on merits and partly succee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
