TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Certificate is 9-12-2011 and not 23-9-2011 mentioned in para-9(c) of the Final Order. On a perusal of the relevant records, we note that the very caption of the certificate addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs refers to Essentiality Certificate dated 23-9-2011. However, the date of covering letter whereunder the Certificate was issued by the competent authority is dated 9-12-2011. The Certificate also bears dated initials of officers subordinate to the issuing authority, in its bottom margin, and these dates are all dates of December 2011. Both sides have made submissions so as to drive home to us the respective points on the basis of the dates shown on the face of the Essentiality Certificate and the date of its covering letter. For our part, any of these dates needs no specific mention in para-9(c) of our Final Order, which merely records the submissions of SPL. On this basis, neither side can have any grievance if, from para-9(c), the word and figures "dated 23-9-2011" are deleted. It is ordered accordingly and consequently the said para will read thus : "The "Essentiality Certificate" duly issued by.... .... ... Power Plant." 2.2 The second grievance raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring before the Tribunal. The grievance of the respondent is that no opportunity was given to discredit the new evidence produced by the appellants. Nevertheless, in the above sub-para, it was recorded to the effect that the evidence adduced on behalf of SPL had not been contested before the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the experts' opinions/certificates produced on behalf of SPL were considered by this Bench in the context of deciding one of the substantive issues raised in their appeal viz. whether the 2400MW power project could be considered to be setting up of a new power plant. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the appellants had, at the bar, heavily relied on the above evidence in his endeavour to establish that the 2400MW power project should be considered to be setting up of a new power plant. The experts' opinions were to the effect that the 2400MW power plant could independently function without, for any purpose whatsoever, depending on the existing 220MW power plant and its mechanical/electrical accessories. The above documentary evidence was found to be key to determination of the above substantive issue and hence reckoned for the purpose. Impliedly, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the adjudicating authority. In this scenario, the findings recorded in the last two sentences of sub-para (f) of para-12(A) of the Final Order may need a modification in view of the our findings recorded in the previous sub-para (e) as also the relevant direction issued to the adjudicating authority vide para-13(v). Accordingly, the last four words of the penultimate sentence of sub-para (f) shall be deleted and the clause reading "which will be addressed later in this order" shall be substituted. Accordingly, the penultimate sentence of sub-para (f) will read thus : "Contextually, we note that, in RIL's appeal, there is an alternative pea which will be addressed later in this order." Further, the last sentence of sub-para (f) of para-12(A) shall be deleted. 4.2 The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is based on Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 and Notification No. 49/2012-Cus., dated 10-9-2012. The first of these Notifications was issued on 17-3-2012 before the hearing on the captioned appeals commenced. This Notification, which superseded Notification No. 21/2012 dated 1-3-2012, was not cited before this Bench by the counsel for the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, be reckoned at this stage. If that be so, the second Notification issued by the Central Government in the current month amending Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 also should remain outside the scope of the present applications. Much has been argued by the learned counsel with reference to Rule 41 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point which was sought to be made by the learned counsel is that this Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction even to recall the Final Order and pass appropriate alternative orders so as to secure the ends of justice. We cannot agree with this omnibus proposition. Inherent jurisdiction was granted to all Civil courts by the legislative authority through Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that, during the course of the proceedings, the courts would be enabled to take care of unforeseen developments and pass appropriate orders so as to secure the ends of justice to the parties to the civil suit/appeal. That is a jurisdiction conferred by the legislature. Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules stands on a different footing. This Tribunal has invoked this Rule in ever so many cases but only to prevent the abuse of it....