Court dismisses writ petitions for non-compliance with pre-deposit rules and affirms lack of Tribunal jurisdiction.

The court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the Tribunal's rejection of the appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements and holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to recall its own orders under Section 129-B(2) and Rule 41. The petitioners were advised to seek remedies against the interim orders under the appropriate legal provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with export obligations under Advance Licences.
2. Rejection of appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under Section 129-E of the Customs Act.
3. Power of the Appellate Tribunal to recall orders under Section 129-B(2) and Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Export Obligations under Advance Licences:
The petitioner company, Plant Organics Limited, was granted Advance Licences to import certain inputs duty-free for manufacturing and exporting bulk drugs such as Ciprofloaxacin HCL, Ciprofloaxacin Acid, and Enrofloxacin. Due to low demand for Ciprofloaxacin HCL and Ciprofloaxacin Acid during the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the company was unable to manufacture these drugs but continued to manufacture Enrofloxacin. The company utilized inputs imported under the licences for Ciprofloaxacin HCL and Ciprofloaxacin Acid to produce Enrofloxacin, resulting in a shortfall in fulfilling the export obligation. The petitioner argued for clubbing export obligations under different licences, but no order was passed on their application by the Joint Director, Foreign Trade, Hyderabad. A show cause notice was issued, and the demand for customs duty was confirmed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Rejection of Appeals for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Requirements under Section 129-E of the Customs Act:
The petitioner company and its Managing Director filed appeals against the demand order. They sought to waive the pre-deposit requirement under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, citing undue hardship. The Tribunal partially waived the pre-deposit, requiring 75% of the demanded amount to be deposited. The petitioners failed to comply, leading to the rejection of their appeals. The court noted that compliance with the pre-deposit requirement is mandatory for entertaining appeals, and failure to comply results in the appeals being rightly rejected.

3. Power of the Appellate Tribunal to Recall Orders under Section 129-B(2) and Rule 41:
The petitioners filed applications under Section 129-B(2) to recall the rejection order, arguing that the Tribunal had the power to rectify mistakes. The court held that Section 129-B(2) applies only to orders passed under Section 129-B(1) and does not apply to orders made under Section 129-E. There was no apparent mistake in the rejection order, as it was made in accordance with the law. Additionally, Rule 41, which allows the Tribunal to make orders to secure the ends of justice, does not empower it to recall a final order passed due to non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit requirements.

The court concluded that the applications to recall the rejection orders were without jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioners were advised to challenge the interim orders under Section 129-E if they had valid grounds.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the Tribunal's rejection of the appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements and holding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to recall its own orders under Section 129-B(2) and Rule 41. The petitioners were advised to seek remedies against the interim orders under the appropriate legal provisions.

---