1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.31 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Customs ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Welldeep Metal India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R.V. Desai, senior counsel with R.B.Pardeshi for appellant. Mr. Mukesh Jain with Mahesh Pandey for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appearing for the revenue. The appeal was admitted on 13th July, 2005 on the following three substantial questions of law:- A. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is empowered to review its own order already decided earlier on merits under section 129B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 by resorting to a procedure of restoration of Appeals under rule 20 of CESTAT Procedures Rules, 1982 ? B. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT ought to have decided the issue of the violations of the provisions of Notification No.204/92 dated 19-02-1992 of EXIM Policy 1992-1997 while deciding the case solely on the issue of jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai to adjudicate the matter ? C. Whether for an offence taken place in territorial jurisdiction of commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said matter ? 2 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue fairly states that the Tribunal has relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India V/s. Ram Narain Bishwanath reported in 1997(96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.). In the above view of the matter, all the questions are answered against the revenue. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)