2019 (1) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the appellant/assessee under Rule 41 of (CESTAT) Procedure Rules for directions to the Respondent Commissioner to forthwith release of the bank guarantee in compliance with the directions given in the final order. 3. Heard the parties and perused the records and written submissions. ROM Application No. Customs ROM No.51277/2018 in Appeal No.497/2010 4. Revenue in the ROM application pointed out mistakes, which are taken up one by one hereunder:- 5. It is stated that this Tribunal in the final order has relied upon the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) dated 1.6.2010 instead of CAR dated 8.10.99. As the show cause notice was issued on 25.07.2008 prior to coming into existence of CAR dated 1.6.2010. Hence, reliance on the CAR dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of law is involved. Further, it is established principle of law that reference to a Larger Bench or full bench has to be made on specific point of law and question is to be framed for answer by the Larger Bench. It has been so held by the full bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mohammad Asgar Mugal Vs. Jahuruddin Mugal reported in 2010 (257) ELT 492, that a full bench is required to answer only the questions of law, which are formulated and referred to Larger Bench and nothing else. 6.2. Considering the rival contentions, we find that this Tribunal in the final order has given categorical findings and recorded the difference in the facts in the case of 'King Rotors and Air Charter' as compared to the facts in the prese....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demic. 7.2. Having considered the rival contentions on this ground, we find that the said ground is frivolous and merely academic in view of the observations in the final order, holding that there is no violation of post-import conditions. 8. Next ground raised is that there have been violation of principles of natural justice and denial of fair opportunity to the Revenue by providing only two weeks time, directing the Revenue to return the bond and the bank guarantee from the date of the receipt of the final order by the Department. 8.1. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/assessee points out that a Court or Tribunal can pass any order, in the interest of justice. 8.2. This Tribunal has not violated the provisions of any law directing the re....