Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
C.M. Abdul Razak vs Commissioner Of Customs on 14 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(170)ELT416(TRI-BANG)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. By this ROM application Revenue contend that the Order passed by the President's Bench in Final Order No. 1270/2003, dated 17-9-2003 is not proper. It was noted in the Tribunal's Order that the Deputy Commissioner who adjudicated the matter had no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the same.
2. The ld. SDR Shri S.M. Tata, who appeared in the matter conceded the position and in view of this position the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to pass the final order within three months from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's order. Now, the Revenue contend that the mistake is factual and the order is required to be recalled and appeal to be heard.
3. We have heard both sides in the matter.
4. On a careful consideration we notice that the ld. SDR conceded the position that the Deputy Commissioner has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact the Order is a consent order. In terms of the Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. CCE [2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. - LB)], the Tribunal's order cannot be recalled for re-hearing and only arithmetic mistakes can be corrected. In view of this position the ROM is not accepted and the same is rejected. The Commissioner should re-adjudicate the matter within a period of three months from today after giving an opportunity of hearing in the matter.