( 1 ) 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 respect thereof subject to an obligation that it would reserve 10% of the beds for patients from families having a income of less than rs. 500/- per month and provision for free treatment of at least 40% of the outdoor patients shall be made.

( 5 ) AN investigation was carried out in the year 1999 as to whether the appellant No. 1 had fulfilled all such conditions or not. The matter went before the customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at mumbai. The appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal was heard along with the cases of M/s Miraj Medical Centre W. Hospital and M/s Balabhai Nanavati Hospital.

( 6 ) BY reason of a judgment and order dated 19. 1. 2006, the tribunal having held that the appellants before it had continuous obligation to fulfill the aforementioned conditions laid down under the said Notification dated 1. 3. 1988 and having not complied therewith the redemption fine and penalty imposed upon it by the Customs Authorities were justified.

( 7 ) INDISPUTABLY, appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake before the Tribunal in regard to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The said application was allowed.

( 8 ) AN appeal was preferred against the order of the Tribunal before this Court.

( 9 ) IT is stated before us by Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and we have no reason to disbelieve him that one of the contentions raised before this Court was that the Tribunal had not taken 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. Learned counsel states that an appropriate application shall be filed before the Tribunal and seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn accordingly. "

( 11 ) PURSUANT thereto or in furtherance thereof the appellant No. 1 filed an application before the Tribunal purported to be an application for rectification of mistake wherein, inter alia, the following grounds were raised:

"8. While disposing of the appeals by a common order dated 19. 1. 2006, this Hon'ble Tribunal has only recorded the facts as applicable to one of the appellants, namely, the Miraj Medical Centre and has failed to appreciate the difference in facts and circumstances in the applicants case, inter-alia, as regards the following: (a) The applicants had actually reserved 10% of the hospital beds for poor and indigent persons and had advertised on several occasions the facility of free treatment to such people without means; (b) The applicants also satisfied the criteria for out patient treatment, both by giving free treatment at the hospital's OPD a