NIMMALA SATYANARAYAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1986-3-3
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 12,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Kalyanam, - (1.)THIS is an application for restoration of the appeal No. C/189/85 dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 11.12.1985.
(2.)The above appeal stood posted for hearing on 11.12.85 and neither the appellant nor anyone on his behalf was present and no communication for adjournment also was received from the appellant and in such a situation the Tribunal having regard to the fact that the issue to be determined lay in a short compass disposed of the appeal on merits. The preserved application has been filed to restore the appeal disposed of on merit for re-hearing.
Shri Huck, the learned counsel for the appellant submits 'that the Tribunal is entitled to exercise inherent power of review. It war, further urged that the impugned order could be reviewed.

(3.)I am afraid the plea of the learned counsel is not legally tenable. It is well settled proposition of law that the power of review is not a inherent power and is something that must be conferred by law either specitically or by necessary implication. This position is no longer res integi and is covered by a number of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme. Court as well as the High Courts. Reference may usefully be made to the Ruling of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji reported in AIR 1970 S.C. 1273, wherein Supreme Court has clearly held that the power of review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and the case before the Supreme Court arose out of Saurashtra Land Reforms Act wherein no power of review was conferred. The full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. Beero Pollai AIR 1936 Mad. 531 (FB) held "Generally no court has got a power of revising its own appellate orders nor has a Court the power of review unless specifically conferred on it". The Full Bench of the Mysore High Court in Sampu Gowda v. State of Mysore reported in AIR 1953 Mys. 156 (FB) held "Review is a remedy to be sought for and applied under special circumstances. The jurisdiction or power to review cannot be assumed or imported in the absence of any specific provision therefor or of even indication of the conditions for the exercise of it". So far as the Statutory Tribunal is concerned it is well settled that there is no power of review inherent in it. The Tribunal rules also have not-vested the Tribunal with any power of review. In such a situation the order passed by the Tribunal on merits cannot be reviewed under law. Therefore, I have no other alternative except to reject the petition and the same is accordingly rejected.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.