2019 (12) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reopen an appeal for hearing which was already finally disposed of by its own previous order ? (B) Whether CESTAT has power to review its own order and pass fresh final order in the absence of any petition for review ? 4. The challenge in this Appeal is to the order dated 19th April, 2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), rejecting the appeal instituted by the Appellant herein against the order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 5. The record reveals that in fact, by an order dated 10th July, 1998, the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had, in fact, been allowed inter alia by enhancing the final penalty. The operative portion of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of M/s Mahakali International redemption fine is enhanced to Rs. 6,62,776/- and penalty to Rs. 66,000/-. The above fine and penalty have been determined on the basis of the enhanced assessable value of the consignments and in the light of the precedent decision of M/s. Archana International of this Tribunal. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The Respondents will be entitled consequential relief if any according to law." 6. Despite the aforesaid, the Tribunal once again took up the appeal for consideration along with two connected appeals. Although the Special Defence Representative (SDR) did appear before the Tribunal on the date when such appeal was taken up for hearing i.e. 19.04.2007, the Tribunal was not informed about....