TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2008 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2008 - S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. [Order]. - Leave granted. 2. Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with an order dated 18-1-2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein on the ground that it was not a fit case to exercise the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 4. Appellant No. 1 which is a Charitable Tust runs a hospital on no profit basis. It imported certain equipments invoking the Notification 64/88-Cus. dated 1-3-1988 issued by the Government of India in terms whereof exemption from payment of custom duty was granted in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into consideration the fact involved in the matter and had the same been done it could have been established that the appellant had in fact fulfilled all its obligations in terms of the said Notification. Several other points were also said to have been urged before the Tribunal. 10. This Court, presumably, on the premise that Judges' record is final and if an apparent error has been committed by the Tribunal in not taking into consideration the contentions raised before it by the appellants, permitted it to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal, stating : "Learned counsel states that several other points had been argued before the Tribunal which have not been taken note of by it. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants being a hospital run by a charitable trust, on a no profit basis, the applicants were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. under Entries 1 3 alternatively. 9. The factual position being distinct and different from the main matter heard by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Hon'ble Tribunal ought to have appreciated the difference in the facts and ordered accordingly. The non-appreciation and/or improper appreciation of facts has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record in the Order dated 19-1-2006. 10. The Hon'ble Tribunal has failed to appreciate that if the obligations under Entry 2 in the table annexed to Notification 64/88 is a continuing obligation, the compliance with the obligation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would contend that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the Tribunal must be considered to have acted illegally and without jurisdiction in so far as it failed to take into consideration that all Tribunals had inherent power to recall their order. 15. Mr. Abhichandani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. 16. Indisputably, the Tribunal considered the appeals preferred by the appellants along with the appeals preferred by two others. It has been contended before us that Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital had filed Customs Appeal Nos. 61 and 62 of 2006 thereagainst before the High Court which had been allowed by an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties, were required to be complied with. 20. While the judges' records are considered to be final, it is now a trite law that when certain questions are raised before the Court of law or Tribunal but not considered by it, and when it is brought to its notice, it is the only appropriate authority to consider the question as to whether the said contentions are correct or not. 21. For the aforementioned purpose the provisions of limitation specified in sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act would not be attracted. We, however, do not mean to lay down a law that such an application can be filed at any time. If such an application is filed within a reasonable time and if the Court or Tribunal finds that the contention raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin thirty days from the date of publication of the award. Once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17-A of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to setting aside of an award passed by it. In other words, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award in the gazette, the same having become enforceable, the Labour Court would become functus officio". 24. Yet again in Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab Ors. [2008 (8) SCALE 242], this Court held : "17. What matters for exercise of jurisdiction is the source of power and not the failure to mention the correct provisions of law. Even in the absence of any expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
