TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Gopakumar and Ms S Krishna, holding for Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr Manu S for parties. 2. Forbes and Company Limited is the appellant in this Court and before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin is the respondent in this appeal. The instant appeal, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'), is filed questioning Misc. Order No.20004/2017 dated 06.01.2017 in Application No.C/ROM/21353/2015 and Final Order No.21545/2015 dated 13.07.2015 in Appeal No.C/27184/2013-DB filed before the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. We find it useful and also convenient to refer to a few dates and events chronologically for app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,98,58,697/- (Rupees nine crores ninety eight lakhs eight on stores valued at by the Ship N Cable Ship Pte Ltd on the stores valued at Rs. 45,15,20,479/- received by the Cable Ship ASEAN Explorer under section 28 (8) of the Customs Act 1962. v) M/s. ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd. shall also be liable to pay interest as applicable under section 28 (10) of the Customs Act 1962, on the duty amount of Rs.9,98,58,697/- (Rupees nine crores ninety eight lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred and ninety seven only) from the date of import till the date of payment of the duty. vi) I impose a penalty equal to the sum of duty of Rs. 9,98,58,697/- and interest payable thereon, on M/s. ASEAN Cable Ship Pte Ltd.. under section 114A of the Customs Act 1962....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght weeks from today and report compliance on 13.7.2015." 2.4 On 13.07.2015 the Tribunal, referring to the order, the direction issued on 30.04.2015 and the default on the part of the appellant in complying with the direction, dismissed the appeal and the operative portion reads thus: "4. We find that the said order was passed on 30.4.2015 and a period of 8 weeks' time was given to the appellant for depositing the dues in question. Neither the dues stand deposited nor any application for recalling of the said ex parte order stands filed by the assessee within a period of more than 22 months. As such, the prayer of the learned advocate to adjourn the matter to a further date so as to enable them to file an application cannot be apprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view the ratio of the decisions cited supra, we do not find any merit in the application seeking rectification of mistake and the same is dismissed." Hence, the appeal. 3. The appellant raises the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal below was justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 read with R.20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for rectification of the mistake apparent on the record by recalling or setting aside Final Order No.21545/2015 dated 13.07.2015 and amending/modifying the Stay Order No.20868 dated 30.04.2015 to grant full and unconditional stay of recovery of dues determine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consistent orders in the same matter, she invited our attention to the Final Order made by the Tribunal on 18.02.2020 in the appeal filed by M/s.ASEAN Cableship Pvt. Ltd. 4.1 For all the above grounds, it is argued that the orders dated 13.07.2015 and 06.01.2017 are liable to be set aside and Miscellaneous Application C/ROM/21353/2015 is allowed, and Appeal is restored and matter is heard on merits. 5. Advocate S Krishna contends that the latches in pursuing the remedy of appeal speak volumes on the conduct of the appellant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was compelled to pass the orders dated 13.07.2015 and 06.01.2017. 6. The contentions put forward by the counsel are appreciated from the following perspective. The Tribunal is certain....