2011 (2) TMI 194 - HC - Customs

High Court upholds Tribunal's decision on review application under Customs Act, emphasizing limited scope of review applications

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to reject a review application ... Review - Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),revoking CHA licence of the appellant and the order for forfeiture of whole of security given against the bond executed at the time of grant of licence - the appellant filed an application for review of the said order before the Appellate Tribunal - Held that: as per the Rule 41 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1984, one cannot file any application for review of an order on merit which can be done only if there exists a specific provision of Review like that of an appeal - Hence, there is no scope of review of the original order at the instance of the appellant merely on the ground that some of the decisions cited by the appellant was not discussed in detail in the judgment - Thus, decided against of assessee. Issues:Appeal against Tribunal's order dismissing application for recalling and modifying a final order. Review application filed based on lack of discussion of cited decisions in the judgment. Interpretation of Rule 41 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1984 regarding the scope of review. Determination of whether review is permissible under the Customs Act in absence of specific provision.Analysis:The appeal before the Calcutta High Court was directed against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's Order dismissing an application for recalling and modifying a final order dated 7th December, 2007. The appellant had initially appealed against the Commissioner of Customs' decision to revoke their CHA license and forfeit the security bond. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the appellant filing a review application citing the lack of detailed discussion on cited decisions in the judgment.Upon examination, the High Court found that the appellant had not filed an appeal against the final order dated 7th December, 2007, which had already attained finality. Instead of appealing, the appellant filed a review application, contending that Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1984 allowed for review. The Court analyzed Rule 41 and concluded that it aimed to prevent abuse of the Tribunal's process and ensure justice, but it did not provide for a general review of orders on merit without a specific provision akin to an appeal.The High Court determined that in the present case, there was no scope for a review of the original order solely based on the lack of detailed discussion of cited decisions in the judgment. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law was involved in the appeal and dismissed it summarily. The Court emphasized that the absence of a specific provision for review under the Customs Act meant that review could not be entertained merely on the grounds presented by the appellant.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the limitations on review applications under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for specific provisions akin to those for appeals. The Court's analysis of Rule 41 highlighted the scope of review within the Tribunal's procedures, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of legal grounds for review in the absence of a statutory provision.