TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 843
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes, Ms Dona Mary E J holding for Mr Aswin 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Regulation] Act 1992. iv) I confirm the demand of duty of Rs.9,98,58,697/- (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 payab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, we dismiss the stay petition for non-prosecution and direct, the appellant to deposit the entire dues within eight 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of our own order which is not permitted as per the various decisions cited by the learned AR for the department. Therefore keeping in 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.21545/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not have been imposed, the appeal is dismissed, and the appellant is denied the valuable statutory right before the CESTAT, Bangalore. To bring home the inconsistent 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout appreciating the inherent error in exercise of its jurisdiction as referred in the above chronology. 6.2 The Tribunal in one case through a default order confirmed the order dated 04.04.2013, in the case of the appellant herein and reversed the same order in the case of M/s.ASEAN Cableship Pvt. Ltd. Now, one order has two distinct consequences in the same and similar set of circumstances. To avoid such contingency and to give an opportunity to the appellant in the appeal, we are convinced orders dated 13.07.2015 and 06.01.2017 can be set aside. 6.3 From the above consideration under our jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act, we are convinced that the orders dated 06.01.2017 and 13.07.2015 are ex facie illegal and unavailable ....