: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2009 Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs (Import) ...Petitioner. V/s. Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Pradip Jetly , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Sujay Kantawala and Brijesh Pathak a/w Ms.Barsha Parulekar , advs. for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & CORAM: F.I.Rebello & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 21st April, 2009. DATE : 21st April, 2009. DATE : 21st April, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner before this Court impugns the orders dated 29.7.03 and 1.1.2008. By the order dated 29.7.2003, the Tribunal has set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore for fresh adjudication and passing of fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. By the order dated 1st January, 2008, application for rectification moved by the petitioner herein was dismissed. : 2 : 3. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner that by Office Order dated 6th January, 1999 adjudication in respect of present respondent nos.2 to 4, the jurisdiction was conferred on Shri K.D.Mankar, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. It is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the Officer Order. . On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4, the learned counsel submits that an Office Order was by name of Shri K.D.Mankar, Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. The officer mentioned therein is no longer functioning in the department and consequently, the order of the Tribunal doesnot suffer from any error of law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel and the intent of the Office Order dated 6th January, 1999, we pass the following order: i. After considering the order of 6th January, 1999, it is clear that the power conferred was on a person designate and not by the post and consequently, the order of the Tribunal to that extent cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. : 3 : ii. We direct the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore not to proceed with proceedings for a period of six months from today. In the meantime, it will be open for the petitioner to move the Central Government for appropriate directions in respect of proceedings, which are presently pending in Mumbai concerning the respondent nos.2 to 4. It is open for the Central Government to pass appropriate orders. iii. In the event, a fresh order is passed conferring authority by designation or post on an officer at Mumbai, then such officer will proceed with the adjudication and to that extent, order of the CESTAT will stand varied. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)