2009 (4) TMI 103 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT Mumbai Denies Stay Request, Emphasizes Lack of Review Power for Quasi-Judicial Authorities

PLANET ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dismissed the applicants' request for a stay of the Commissioner's order, directing them to comply with the deposit ... Appeal filed before commissioner (appeals) with a request to grant stay – C(A) dismissed stay application and ordered to pre-deposit – appellant filed an application before C(A) to modify its own order on the issue of stay – C(A) refused to modify its own order – Appeal files against the decision of the C(A) for not exercising its power to modify its own order in the interest of justice – Tribunal Observed that modification of order implies review of its earlier order – the review of orders of appellant authorities are not permitted exercising its appellate power – appellants requested to refer the matter to Larger Bench – Held that the demand of referring the issue to Larger Bench is not tenable – appellant directed to comply with the orders of the commissioner (appeals) The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, presided over by Justice R. M. S. Khandeparkar and Shri A. K. Srivastava, addressed a case where the applicants challenged an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Mumbai. The applicants sought a stay of the order, which was refused by the Commissioner. The applicants argued that the Commissioner's order was incorrect and should be modified. The Tribunal considered the legal provisions under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal. The Tribunal noted that the order in question was not executable, as it rejected the application for modification. The Tribunal also discussed the issue of modification of orders and the power of quasi-judicial authorities to review their decisions. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Karnataka High Court had ruled on this matter, indicating that quasi-judicial authorities do not have the power to review their orders. The Tribunal dismissed the applications for stay, directing the applicants to comply with the order for deposit within four weeks. The Tribunal also clarified the difference between remand and review of orders, emphasizing that the lower appellate authority can remand a case for reconsideration but does not have the power to review or modify its own orders. The Tribunal concluded that there was no need to refer the matter to a Larger Bench and dismissed the applications. The compliance report was scheduled for a later date.