TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cants had filed appeals before the Tribunal and had engaged Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate to appear on behalf of all the Applicants; that when their appeals came up for hearing on 14-2-03, it appeared that the Tribunal was not inclined to completely waive the requirement of pre-deposit and in these circumstances, without consulting the Applicants and without obtaining the applicants' consent to the withdrawal of the appeals, the appeals were withdrawn by Shri A.D. Maru; that this is evident from the affidavit of Mr. Maru, wherein he has affirmed that he withdrew the appeals since he believed that Deputy Commissioner, Bhavnagar, would necessarily have to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order after giving his clients an opportunity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and others [1993 (SUP) 4 SCC 595] wherein it has been held that if an order has been passed by the Court which had jurisdiction to pass it, then the error or mistake in the order can be got corrected by a higher court or by an application for clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by ignoring the order by any Authority actively or passively or disobeying it expressly or impliedly. Any doubt or ambiguity can be removed by the court which passed the order and not by an Authority according to its understanding. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Pradeep Kumar and anothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not in dispute that the learned Advocate who was representing the Applicants requested for the permission to withdraw the appeals which was acceded to by the Hon'ble Tribunal; that accordingly, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn; that it is not open to the Applicants to contend that they had not authorised their Advocate to withdraw the appeals. Learned Senior Departmental Representative also mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal vide Stay Order Nos. 285-288/02-B, and Stay Order No. 289-291/02-B had directed the Applicants to deposit certain amounts under the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act; that all the Applicants have moved the Misc. Applications for modification of the Stay Orders; that when the matters came u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and accordingly provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 129B of Customs Act are not applicable. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. Collector of Customs - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that the "Tribunal cannot exercise any power to recall an order validly passed under the cover of rectification of mistake". 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find substantial force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Departmental Representative that Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants was at the relevant time empowered/eligible to withdraw the appeals on behalf of the Applicants. The reason mentioned by Shr....