TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This application is by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, the respondent in the appeal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1539/2005, dated 6-12-2005. The Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to complete the enquiry against the CHA (appellant) and pass final order within a period of 4 months from 6-12-2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly cited the High Court s judgment in her endeavour to make out a case against the CHA in the present application. Ld. Counsel for the respondent opposes this application, by submitting that the final order passed by the Tribunal having already merged with the judgment of the High Court cannot be modified by the Tribunal. He has also adverted to the facts and circumstances of the case, while urgi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final order was passed. The present application, by invoking Rule 41, is thereby invoking the Tribunal s discretion. The applicant so doing should not have withheld material information. We have noticed that ld. Commissioner has not mentioned the High Court s judgment in his application. Nevertheless, ld. SDR has produced the High Court s judgment before the Bench and we are taking the same to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
