TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....answer the reference made by the Regular Bench over a conflicting issue as there were two divergent views in the case of M/s. Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta [1999 (108) E.L.T. 818 (Tribunal)] and in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Special Steels Ltd. [2004 (163) E.L.T. 242 (Tri. - Mumbai)] respectively. Accordingly, the Larger Bench has heard the matter at length and answered the reference considering the material on record. The grouse of the Department in this application is that some of the decisions citied by them were not considered by the Larger Bench; as such, it seeks indulgence of this Bench to rectify such an alleged mistake in the reference order by way of an amendment. 2.Now the point for de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses as to whether the order, which answers the reference made by the Referral Bench, would amount to final order within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 129B of the Customs Act? 3.It is pertinent to note that the Appeal No. C/1345/02-Mum. has arisen against an Order-in-Original No. CAO No. 201/2002/CAC/CC/M.C.T. dated 1-5-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, and the same is pending for disposal before the Regular Bench of the Tribunal. On hearing the matter, the Regular Bench raised a doubt as to the applicability of the case law in view of the conflicting decisions rendered by the Tribunal earlier in two different cases, as cited supra, therefore, the matter has been referred for an answer by the Larger Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remanding the matter to the Collector for examining whether the appellant and another company is a related person. Subsequently, there was a rectification order by a Bench comprising three members, by which the final order was recalled. Subsequently, the appellants, in that case, filed two more applications for rectification of mistakes. These two applications came up before the Bench of the Tribunal consisting of two members. It was pleaded by the appellant that two member Bench cannot decide the same since the final order in the appeal as also the earlier rectification order was passed by a Bench comprising of three members. In that context, the Apex Court held the view that the order passed under Rule 31A of CEGAT Procedural Rules, 1992....