DIPEN ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Final Order No. C -II/3247 -48/2003/WZB/dt. 9 -12 -2003 in Appeal Nos. C/534 and 535/96 -Bom., the Tribunal upheld confiscation of 'Video Magnetic Tapes in Hubs' under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 for overvaluation of the export goods in the Shipping Bill, with option to redeem the same, reduced the personal penalty imposed under Section 114 upon the exporter to Rs. 50,000/ - and set aside penalty imposed upon the partner of the exporting firm.

(2.) By the present application the exporter seeks rectification of mistake purported to be apparent from the record in non -consideration of miscellaneous application filed on 12 -11 -2003 in which the exporters relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd., and sought to distinguish the Apex Court judgment in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, .

(3.) We have heard both sides. Hearing of the above appeals was concluded on 7 -7 -2003. After an appeal is heard, nothing further is required to be done except for the Bench to peruse the records and consider the argument of both sides and then pass the order. It is not open to either side to file any application after the conclusion of the hearing and before the pronouncement of the order. If applications were permitted to be filed after hearing on an appeal is concluded, there would be no finality to any proceedings and the smooth functioning of the Tribunal would be impeded and would not be feasible. The reliance placed by the Id. Counsel for the applicants on the Tribunal's order on the ROM application in the case of Smt. Jayshreeben M. Patel and Ors. v. CCE, Ahmedabad (Order No. C -II/100 -108/WZB/2004, dated 7 -1 -2004, does not come to their aid as the above order allowing ROM applications was passed in the facts of that case namely that not only was the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant not considered by the Tribunal but also that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the entire transaction of the appellants acquisition of gold bars is legal, was not taken into account. This order cannot be said to be a binding precedent. The decision of the Tribunal in Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, cited by the applicants before the Bench in the Smt. Jayshreeben M. Patel case supra is also distinguishable for the reason that the Bench had not considered the case law cited in the synopsis filed by the appellants under the directions of the Bench and therefore the Bench held that an error apparent exist on the face of the record.