TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.5 Crores which payment was directed to be deposited as condition precedent for hearing the appeal. 2. We may note at the outset that these appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion with the order of the pre-deposit not complied with. The revenue/appellant has filed these appeals challenging the common order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the CESTAT in Appeal Nos. 609/2006, 610/2006 and 611/2006. On the information received by DRI that the consignees at Russia, to whom various goods were being exported from India under repayment of State Credit Scheme, were either non-existent or had made no import/export operation, searches were carried out at the office of the respondents situated in Janakpuri, New Delhi. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls. 7. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals, the appellants approached this Court challenging the said orders. The appeals of the appellants were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court with the following concluded remarks: "Against the order requiring the Appellants to refund the drawback amount, they preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which as already noticed required them to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 Crores as a condition for hearing the appeal. Since the Appellants did not deposit the amount, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26th March, 2007 dismissed the appeals. Given the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed hereinabove, we do not find any gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted on the following substantial questions of law: "a) Whether the learned CESTAT has got jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 to restore the appeals dismissed by it four years ago, by reviewing its order particularly when the order passed by the CESTAT has merged with the order passed by the High Court in Appeal No. CUS A No.15/2007 which has attained finality? b) Whether the impugned order is non-est being passed by the learned CESTAT in exercising its powers under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 especially when the CESTAT has not been conferred with the power of review and the order dated 26.3.2007 passed by the CESTAT has merged with order dated 9.10.2007 passed by this Court in Appeal No. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months 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 has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party shall not be made under this sub-section, unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2A) Th....