TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Sunil Gupta v. Union o India & Ors [2015 (315) ELT 167 (Bom) and the other detailed submissions made by the Learned Authorised Representative during the hearing of the stay application. 3. The specific prayer is that suitable rectification of the interim order may be effected in accordance with the decision supra of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Thus, the applicant, in effect, prays for vacating the stay on recovery of amounts confirmed in the adjudication order. 4. Anticipating our disinclination to review our own order, it was pointed out that the Tribunal in Ms Girnar Trans ormers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2014-TIOL-305-CESTATDEL] had enunciated principles, albeit in relation to jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals), emerging from statutory provision and various judicial decisions thus: '30. While no uniform, or a wholly coherent norm could be culled out from the several decisions adverted to (supra), we are able to identify the following principles rom the precedents, to the extent relevant and material for the purposes of the issues arising in the present case. The following principles, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014/CAC/CC(ADJ)/ST dated 28th March 2014 of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai directing recovery of drawback disbursed and imposing penalties. Noting that the show cause notice had been issued by Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, who, not being a proper officer' was held to lack jurisdiction and thus jeopardized the proceedings, the application for stay was allowed just as the proceedings against another entity in the same investigation was set aside by the Principal Bench in re Hemchand Gupta. 7. We have heard both sides and would, at the outset, recall the provisions of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and, in particular, to rule 28A, dealing with procedure for filing and disposal of stay petitions. It does not envisage review of a stay order that has been passed by the Bench. We are, at times, presented with applications for modification of our own orders which are, generally, not entertained except on specific orders of competent courts. We have been consistent in our interpretation that modification, by and large, tantamounts to review of our order. We are not impressed with the citing of the decision to the Tribunal in re M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Tribunal'. it would appear so, we cannot but note that, in doing so, the Hon'ble High Court also observed that: '18 We have also to consider whether a Court or tribunal has suo motu or inherent or implied power of procedural review i the said has not been specifically conferred. In our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra having been concluded by the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors-1980 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 420. We may gainfully reproduce the following observations made in para 13 : "The expression "review " is used in two distinct senses, namely (l) a procedural review, which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the fact of the record. It is in the latter sense that the court in Patel Narshi Thakershi case held that no review Lies on merits unless a statute specifically provided for it. Obviously, when a review is sought due to G procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncurs with the proposition that any 'officer of customs' designated as such can issue notice for recovery of duty. Recovery of drawback, on the contrary. is effected under rule 16 of Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1995. The power vested in 'proper officer' and extended, by amendment, to officer of customs' under section 28 remains restricted to that section and not applicable to the entire Customs Act, 1962. Neither does it extend to any Rules framed there under. We did not have to elaborate upon the above distinction in the present set of facts at the preliminary stage of disposal of application for stay and we did not do so. 11. Suffice it to say, that in the vocalization of justice by the Tribunal, the reverberations of echoes of each binding decision handed down from the higher courts and the percussion of every pronouncement from our coordinate benches set the music. Such an institutional instinct for discipline and conformity to the larger interests of equity is not easily comprehended or appreciated by other branches of government for whom grievance overrides judiciousness. We believe that we do. 12. That two persons to the same inv....