TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch appeal for reconsideration. It is obvious that such taking up of the Appeal was a result of miscommunication. It is obvious that the factum of disposal of the Appeal by order dated 10th July, 1998 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, either by the SDR or the staff of the Tribunal. For these reasons alone, the impugned orders dated 19.04.2007 in both these appeals are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. It is not necessary to go into the larger issue as to whether the Tribunal has any power to review its own Judgments and orders. However, we must note that Ms. Desai did place reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in CP. AQUACULTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRESIDENT, CESTAT [ 2010 (11) TMI 166 - MAD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t respondents have been validly served in these appeals. 5. The challenge in this appeal is in fact to the common Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate (Tribunal), rejecting the appeal instituted by the appellant herein against the order made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. 6. Both these appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (A) Whether CESTAT could reopen an appeal for hearing which was already finally disposed of by its own previous order ? (B) Whether CESTAT has power to review its own order and pass fresh final order in the absence of any petition for review ? 7. In these cases as well as noted by us in our Judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in both these appeals are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to go into the larger issue as to whether the Tribunal has any power to review its own Judgments and orders. However, we must note that Ms. Desai did place reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in C.P. Aquaculture (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. President, CESTAT to submit that the Tribunal is not vested with any such power of review. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the substantial questions of law, as framed, are liable to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent. The impugned order dated 19th April, 2007 is, hereby, set aside and it is made clear that the earlier order dated 10t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
