9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Application No. 3315 of 2004 is a partnership firm engaged in activity of ship breaking. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs passed orders finalising the assessment of the disputed bills of entry and confirmed the differential duties. It is averred in para 3 of the petition that in a number of identical cases of ship breakers, the orders of assessment were challenged by ship breakers in Appeal Nos. 1575 to 2203 of 1999 before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad - respondent No. 3 who, by his order dated 21-10-1999, set aside all the orders of assessment on the ground that the adjudicating authority had not given any opportunity to the ship breakers to present their case and accordingly the matter was remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal by way of separate appeals wherein the appellate Tribunal stayed the order of recovery on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- within a period of four weeks by its order dated 13-11-2002 (Annexure H). 5.Meanwhile, Shriji Traders challenged the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Customs) passed on 30-3-2001 finalising the assessment before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 6299 of 2002 and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to afford opportunity of rebutting the evidence relied upon by the department against the said petitioner (Annexure I). 6.It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that in view of the aforesaid judgment and order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, therefore, request of the petitioner to have de novo proceedings by the appellate authority cannot be considered. 8.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order at Annexure 'P', the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 15980 of 2003 and prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20-3-2001 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Customs) and commanding the Dy. Commissioner (Customs), Bhavnagar to decide the issue regarding assessment of duty de novo after giving necessary documents to the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 19-11-2003 as withdrawn by a brief order (Annexure 'R') which is as under : "Senior advocate Shri Mihir Thakore, on instruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir cases de novo and decide the same after extending opportunity of hearing. He submitted that the whole order of withdrawal was passed by the appellate Tribunal on such mistaken statements made by Advocate Shri A.D. Maru. Therefore, the learned appellate Tribunal ought to have exercised its jurisdiction in favour of all the petitioners under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 by recalling its earlier order. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.S. Bajwa Another v. State of Punjab and Others reported in 1998 (2) SCC 523, Mr. Thakore submitted that because of the mistake of the advocate, the petitioners should not be made to suffer. 11.At the outset, we may state that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C., Ahmedabad Respondent Represented by Sh. R.D. Negi, SDR Coram : Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T), Shri P.S. Bajaj, Member (J). Final order Nos. 105-108/03-B, dated 14-2-2003 Per : V.K. Agrawal : When the matters were called Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, requested for permission to withdraw the appeals. The request is acceded to. Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn." 12.From the above order, it appears that nowhere, Shri Maru had stated that he wanted to withdraw the appeals in view of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court for approaching the concerned authority for de novo proceedings. On a simple statement made by advocate Shri Maru to gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all the applications filed before it by common order dated 12-2-2004. 13.We are conscious of the fact that the petitioners are made to suffer because of their advocate Shri Maru for which they can take any suitable action against the advocate but on that ground this court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when the appellate Tribunal had not committed any error much less jurisdictional error while dismissing all the applications by its impugned common order dated 12-2-2004. 14.Repeatedly, it was tried to be submitted by Mr. Thakore that for no fault of them, the petitioners should not be made to suffer as in the instant case, there was a fault of their Advocate Shri A.D. Maru and prayed for quashing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
