TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oxacin] dated 28-11-1997. During the years 1995-96 and 1996-97, according to the petitioners, the demand for Ciprofloaxacin HCL and Ciproflaxacin Acid was very low and therefore, the petitioner company was unable to proceed to manufacture them. However, according to the petitioner, the demand for Enrofloxacin continued in the international market. Therefore, the petitioner manufactured Enrofloxacin out of inputs imported under the first three licences to manufacture Ciprofloaxacin HCL and Ciprofloaxacin Acid. In the said process, out of the total export obligation of 6.50 MT under all the first three Advance Licences the petitioner company was able to export only 6.035 MT of finished goods. There was only a shortage of 6.465 MT of finished goods. According to the petitioners, as per the export-import policy, the clubbing of obligation under the licence is also permitted. He would further contend that the petitioner company had not utilised almost 85% of the benefit available under the advance licence mentioned as serial No. 4 [licence No. 9000304] for exporting Enrofloxacin. It is further contended that the petitioner made a request to club the duty free licences mentioned above wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carefully. 4. Indisputably, as against the order in Original No. 28/2000 (CAU) dated 28-3-2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, appeal Nos. 305 & 306 of 2000 were filed. But, for entertaining such appeals as provided in Section 129E of the Act, the entire amount demanded as per the impugned order together with interest should be deposited before the proper officer. However, as per the first proviso to Section 129-E of the Act, the Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such condition as the Tribunal may deem proper in the event, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of the duty and interest demanded would cause undue hardship to the petitioners. In this case, the petitioners filed applications under first proviso to Section 129-E of the Act before the 1st respondent to dispense with the above pre-deposit on the ground of likelihood of undue hardship. The same was considered by the tribunal and finally, the Tribunal issued an order dispensing with the deposit of 25% of the demand and directing the petitioners to deposit 75% of the demand. The said order was not challenged before any other forum. Such order had become final. But, the fact remains that with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use undue hardship to such person, the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he or it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interests of revenue. 9. Section 129-B of the Act reads as under :- "129-B. orders of appellate tribunal. - (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Customs or the other party to the appeal : Provided that an amendment which ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it cannot be stated that there has occurred any mistake, that too, apparent from the record warranting any rectification by invoking the power under Section 129-B(2) of the Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the applications filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Tribunal which resulted in the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction. 12. The learned counsel would, however, contend that under Rule 41 of the Appellate Tribunal [Procedure] Rules, the Appellate Tribunal has got power to entertain such applications. Rule 41 reads as follows :- "41. Orders and directions in certain cases. - The Tribunal may make such orders to give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice." 13. In my considered opinion, this rule also does not empower the appellate tribunal to recall a final order passed as per the statutory compulsion for non-compliance of payment of pre-deposit. In my considered view, interim orders of such kind normally granted in appeals, after the appeals are entertained by the courts cannot be equated to an order dispensi....