TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant has now filed the petition stating that since a mistake has crept in, in the Tribunal's order, the same may be rectified. 3. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri A.K. Jain, ld. Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.D. Steel and Traders v. U.O.I. reported in 1998 (103) E.L.T. 218 held. "9. In the reply, it is stated that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for his own fault and now, the petitioner is estopped from making any grievance against the order passed by the Tribunal. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner based upon the judgment relied upon by it cannot be accepted since the order of Tribunal dated 19-2-1997 is a result of non-appearance of the petitioner for hearing of the appeal before Tribunal. Because of non-compliance of the Tribunal's order, dated 19-6-1996 present order came to be passed. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. Dismissal of its appeal simplicitor for non-compliance of the condition for grant of stay, we feel, has no relation with dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in excess of the duty payable on the processed jute manufactures used in their manufacture". Ld. Counsel, therefore, submitted that even though the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court cited above could not be cited at the time of hearing the appeal. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Dalmia Laminators, the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court becomes applicable. 4.  Ld. Counsel also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 ruled that - "29. As we have already noticed in the earlier stage of the judgment, the notice issued by the respondent charges the appellants thus - "One of the conditions of the special licence was that the goods would be utilised for consumption as raw material or accessories in the factory of the licence holder and no part thereof would be sold to other parties, but in contravention of that condition the appellants sold a part of the goods imported to a third party; and as the goods had been caused to be issued by fraudulent misrepresentation, they were liable to be confiscated und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bombay High Court in the case of B.D. Steel & Traders is binding and should have been followed. Since it has not been followed and therefore, a mistake has crept in. 5. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chandra Chhotelal v. Central Board of Excise & Customs & Others reported in 1981 E.L.T. 679 (S.C.). Ld. Counsel submits that this judgment was distinguishable in-as-much as it was under the Customs Act and that it was for the period prior to the introduction of the corresponding Section in the Central Excise Act in 1982. He submits that since the ruling is under a different enactment, therefore, the same cannot be applied to the present case. He submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 512 observed that the Tribunal has to follow the decision of jurisdictional High Court. However, Tribunal is free to formulate its own view in absence of any decision of jurisdictional High Court and when views of other High Courts conflicting the view of the jurisdictional High Court, the jurisdictional High Court view shall prevail. In support of his contention that error apparent has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....longed the matter through writ petition which was ultimately dismissed. After the dismissal of writ petition the Tribunal's order became conclusive and there was no option for petitioner but to deposit the amount as directed by the Tribunal; that admittedly, it did not do so inspite of long time having elapsed and Tribunal having adjourned the matter more than once even after the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. The Tribunal was therefore, left with no option but to dismiss the appeal because Section 35F barred entertaining the appeal unless the deposit was made. The Tribunal's order, therefore, is only in accordance with law and no case of interference under Article 226 is made out. Ld. DR submitted that in the case of Navin Chander Chhotelal relied upon by the applicants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that although Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not expressly provide for rejection of the appeal for non-deposit of duty or penalty yet it makes it obligatory on an appellant to deposit the duty or penalty pending the appeal failing which, the appellate authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance of the provision of Section 129(1) ....