TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Mr. Hardika Vyas for the respondent. 2. The Tax Appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law by order dated 08.07.2008:- "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in law after granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh application for rectification of mistake in the ex-parte order, and thereafter, once the appellant had moved the rectification application, treat such rectification application as barred by limitation?" 3. It appears that by order dated 22.03.2007 the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (For Short "CESTAT") disposed of Customs Appeal Nos. 126 to 131 of 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation and again a penalty of Rs. 7,31,704/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 of the Act at Item No. 6 of that order. Likewise, in order-in-original, which is the subject matter of Appeal No. C/129/03, a penalty of Rs. 18,50,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation and again a penalty of Rs. 7,12,331/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 of the Act at Item No. 6 of that order. Further, in order-in-original, which is the subject matter of Appeal No. C/130/03, a penalty of Rs. 7,20,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the principles of natural justice. The CESTAT by order dated 15.11.2007 permitted the appellants to withdraw such restoration applications with a view to file applications for rectification of mistake because certain facts were not pointed out to CESTAT at the time when the matters were heard ex-parte and passed the following common order:- "Order No. M/1185 to 1190/WZB/AHD/07 Per Justice R.K. Abichandani : During the hearing of these applications, learned counsel for the applicants states that the applications seek permission to withdraw these applications with a view to file applications for rectification of mistake because certain facts were not pointed out to the Tribunal at the time when the matter was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... treated as restoration application. 3. The Learned SDR Shri Sameer Chitkara appearing for the Revenue subm that the restoration application filed by the applicants already stand rejected as withdrawn and the applicants cannot be permitted to file repeated applications. We fully agree with the above contention of the learned SDR as restoration application earlier stands decided by the Order dt. 15.11.07, with liberty to the applicants to file Rectification of Mistake application, which stands filed now. However, the same are admittedly beyond the time limit prescribed. We, accordingly, dismiss the present applications as barred by limitation." 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred these Tax Appeals and aforesaid substanti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals) set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs House at Kandla. It was submitted unfortunately that the Advocate for the appellant could not remained present when the matter was heard by the CESTAT and ex-parte order was passed. It was submitted that the restoration application filed by the appellant ought to have been allowed by the CESTAT instead of passing the order permitting the appellants to withdraw the restoration applications and to prefer applications for rectification of mistakes. It was also pointed out that the appellant had preferred applications for rectification of mistake on 19.12.2007 after passing of the order dated 15.11.2007 by the CESTAT permitting the appellant to withdraw the rest....