9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramer on 27th September, 2001 requested the Commissioner to allow them to continue the operations as stopping of operations could result in serious consequences. In response thereto the Commissioner of Customs (Import) granted provisional release of the rig pending investigations and adjudication on submission of bond of Rs. 50 crores backed by a cash deposit of Rs. 10 crores. Being aggrieved, M/s. Pride Foramer filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 3rd October, 2001, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition holding that there was no ground for interference in the order directing M/s. Pride Foramer to furnish a bond of Rs. 50 crores backed by a cash deposit of Rs. 10 crores. 2. M/s. Pride Foramer deposited a sum of Rs. 10 crores and also executed a bond of Rs. 50 crores on 31st October, 2001 and the rig was provisionally released. The notice was issued on 8th January, 2002 to M/s. Pride Foramer to explain and show cause as to why (a) the Rig, 'Pride Pennsylvania' value at Rs. 1,96,69,50,295/- be not confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs, Act, 1962; (b) the differential duty of customs amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed on 13th June, 2003 [2003 (156) E.L.T. 688 (Tribunal)], the revenue preferred four appeals before the Supreme Court. All the four appeals came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated February, 14, 2005 [2005 (181) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. 7. M/s. Pride Foramer thereafter called upon the concerned authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 10 crores and for cancellation of the bond of Rs. 50 crores. Despite repeated letters and representations when nothing was done by the revenue authorities, M/s. Pride Foramer made an application for refund on 9th July, 2003. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group VB, Mumbai sanctioned refund claim of M/s. Pride Foramer, but ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide order dated 2nd September, 2005. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group VB, Mumbai ordering the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, M/s. Pride Foramer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal came to be dismissed on 22nd November, 2005. 8. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of the Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003. Section 130 reads thus : "130. Appeal to High Court :- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be - (a) filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Customs or the other party; (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party; (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved. (3) Where the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 130 is not an order passed in appeal by the Tribunal, obviously, such appeal shall not be maintainable. Can the order dated 5th September, 2005 passed by the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application be said to be an order passed in appeal by the Tribunal? In our view, it is not. An order in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal is an order under Section 129B. Such order is passed in the appeal preferred under Section 129A. The application made by M/s. Pride Foramer for enforcement of the Tribunal's order is surely not an appeal under Section 129A. Rather, miscellaneous application made by M/s. Pride Foramer appears to be an application under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 which empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. The order passed thereon is not an order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an order in appeal. The appeals came to be disposed of by the Tribunal on 30th June, 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
