Recall of reasoned final orders is impermissible after the Tribunal becomes functus officio, especially with unexplained long delay.

Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules was confined to restoration of ex parte orders and did not permit recall of a reasoned final order passed after hearing both sides. Once such an order is made, the Tribunal becomes functus officio, so a later remand in a connected proceeding does not reopen separate adjudication against another party. An unexplained delay of more than six years further supported refusal to disturb the concluded order. On that basis, the application for recall and restoration was held not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for recall and restoration of the earlier final order could be entertained after more than six years on the ground that a related proceeding had later been remanded and the cause of action was said to be in jeopardy.

Analysis: The application was directed against a reasoned final order passed after hearing both sides. Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules was relevant only to restoration in cases decided ex parte, and did not furnish a basis to recall a concluded, reasoned order. Once the final order was made, the Tribunal became functus officio. The later remand in a connected matter did not invalidate the earlier adjudication, because the proceedings against the appellant and the proceedings against the exporter were separate. The long and unexplained delay of more than six years also weighed against reopening the matter.

Conclusion: The request for recall and restoration was not maintainable and was rejected.

---