2014 (4) TMI 1130 - HC - Central Excise

Review petition - Seeking dismissal of refund of the money allegedly collected by the review applicants - Applicants contended the writ appeal was allowed even at the time of admission, without affording an opportunity to the review applicants to present their case - Held that - the grievance of the review applicants is fairly well founded. In view of the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited 2005 (3) TMI 754 - Supreme Court Of India , when a Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate, proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits a procedural irregularity which goes to the root of the matter, the case would be fit for review. Therefore, we need not even ask the review applicants to demonstrate that the order passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. Hence, the review application is allowed. - Decided in favour of review applicant

Summary

Issues:
Refund of money collected illegally by the review applicant from the respondent.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 7.53 crores allegedly collected illegally by the review applicant. The respondent claimed that the amount was collected without authority of law during various inspections and physical verifications. The review applicants contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the investigation revealed unlawful availing of input credit and the respondent could not claim a refund of voluntarily paid amounts.

The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with directions for investigation and issuance of a show cause notice by a specified date. The respondent appealed the decision, and a Division Bench allowed the appeal citing Article 265 of the Constitution, stating that no tax can be collected or levied except by authority of law. The Division Bench directed the review applicants to refund the amount within two weeks, with interest if not paid in time.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs sought a review of the order, arguing that the writ appeal was allowed without sufficient opportunity for the review applicants to present their case. The review applicants raised grounds for review, with the main contention being the lack of opportunity to present their case before the appeal was allowed. The Court, referring to a Supreme Court judgment, found the grievance of the review applicants justified due to procedural irregularity and allowed the review application, recalling the order and reopening the writ appeal for fresh hearing.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the review application, recalling the order and reopening the writ appeal for fresh hearing, based on the procedural irregularity highlighted by the review applicants. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity for all parties to present their case before a decision is made, as established by legal precedents.