2007 (3) TMI 546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bove application. 2. S/Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar, Naveen Kumar and Dakshina Murthy, learned Advocates appeared for the applicants. It was submitted that the above mentioned Final Order has been passed ex parte. The appellants shifted to a new place in Mumbai and consequently their address mentioned in the cause title also changed. They intimated the postal authorities about the change of address on 9-9-2003 and requested the postal authority to deliver the letter addressed to the applicants to their new address. The Tribunal disposed of the stay application filed against Adjudication Order No. 5/2003-04 dated 3-2-2004 vide Stay Order No. 497/2005 dated 17-6-2005 granting full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of duty. The abo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(iii)   CC & C.E v. Solitaire Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., 2003 (152) E.L.T. 384 (T) (iv)   Bellevue Clinic v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Kolkata, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 120 The following decisions of the Apex Court have also not been considered :- (i)      LML v. CCE, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) (ii)    Kiran Spinning Mills v. CC., 1999 (113) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) (iii)   U.O.I. v. Apar Pvt Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) The Tribunal has wide powers to recall ex parte order. The following case laws are relied on :- (a)     J.K. Synthetics, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 472 (S.C.) (b)     Grindlays Bank v. CGIT, AIR 1981 (S.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order decided on merits need not be recalled. (ii) In the following decision, the ROA has been rejected as the ex parte order decided on merits :- (a)     Standard Surfactants Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kanpur, 1998 (104) E.L.T. 637 (Tribunal) (b)     Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal) (c)     Kirtilal Kalidas Diamond Exporters v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 251 (Tribunal) 4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Since the applicant has stated that they received the Final Order No. 1887/2005 dated 11-11-2005 [2006 (195) E.L.T. 88 (Tri. - Bang.)] only from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....005 2. Notice dated 18-1-2005 - Date of Hearing on 28-2-2005 3. Notice dated 8-4-2005 - Date of Hearing on 17-6-2005 4. Notice dated 4-10-2006- Date of Hearing on 7-11-2005 Thus the CESTAT Registry despatched the notices by registered post to the address given by the applicants. The applicants have not informed the Registry about any change in the address at all. Even in their application, for recalling the order they have stated that they had informed the postal authority to deliver the letters addressed to the applicant to their new address. In that connection, they have enclosed a copy of their letter dated 9-9-2003 addressed to the Postmaster, Andheri (West), Mumbai. It is not understood how that letter is rel....