Mandatory pre-deposit under customs law bars recall of rejected appeals; rectification and procedural powers cannot revive final orders.

Non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 129-E of the Customs Act prevents an appeal from being entertained, subject only to any granted waiver. Where the Tribunal had already allowed only partial waiver and the balance deposit was not made, rejection of the appeals attained finality and no subsisting appeal remained for revival. Section 129-B(2) applies only to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in orders passed under Section 129-B(1), and cannot be used to recall orders rejecting appeals for statutory non-compliance. Rule 41 also cannot be invoked to nullify a final rejection order or confer a power of recall once finality has attached.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall the orders rejecting the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, by invoking Section 129-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 or Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Analysis: The appeal under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 could be entertained only on deposit of duty and interest, subject to waiver in cases of undue hardship. The Tribunal had already granted only partial waiver and directed deposit of the balance amount. As that condition was not complied with, the appeals were rightly rejected, and there was no subsisting appeal before the Tribunal in the strict sense. Section 129-B(2) applies only to amendment of orders passed under Section 129-B(1) to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, whereas the impugned rejection orders were not orders passed on appeal under Section 129-B(1). Rule 41 could not be used to nullify a final order passed in consequence of statutory non-compliance, nor could it confer power to recall an order where finality had already attached.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the recall applications, and the refusal to recall the orders rejecting the appeals was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the Tribunal's rejection of the recall applications was upheld on the ground that non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition left no appeal capable of being revived under the cited provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot invoke rectification or procedural powers to recall an order rejecting an appeal for failure to comply with a mandatory pre-deposit condition, because such rejection is not an amendable appellate order and finality cannot be displaced through inherent procedural power.

---