2013 (6) TMI 34 - HC - Central Excise

Review petition - order passed by the Tribunal is in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as the order was to be passed after recording the evidence - whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal could have pass an order in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court? - Held that - Additional Commissioner on the basis of the application filed by the appellant under Section 35 (c) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking rectification of the order by the Tribunal and the Tribunal, though dismissed the application, but made certain observations and on the basis of the said observations, the matter was taken into consideration by the petitioner department itself and the Additional Commissioner vide letter dated 04.02.2013 had directed to the Deputy Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Pithampur, the aforesaid order was passed disposing of the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. No apparent error on the face of record so as to invoke the jurisdiction of review, which is extremely limited - impose cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking review of the order passed in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011 without framing substantial question of law.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of an order passed in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011. The appellant raised a ground that the order passed by the Tribunal was in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court as it was to be passed after recording the evidence. The appellant had filed an application seeking rectification of the mistake apparent on the face of the record, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, subsequent developments led to the Additional Commissioner directing an examination of the products cleared by the appellant. In light of these developments, the court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal until the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner as per the directions issued.

Regarding the issue of not framing a substantial question of law, the court noted that although no specific substantial question of law was framed, the question of law involved was whether the Tribunal could pass an order in violation of the Supreme Court's order. The subsequent developments, including the application filed by the appellant under Section 35 (c) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the observations made by the Tribunal, were taken into consideration by the department. The court found no apparent error on the face of the record to invoke the jurisdiction of review, which is limited. The court emphasized that the department had complied with the Tribunal's observations by issuing a letter, and since the appeal had been disposed of in line with that letter, the review petition was deemed unwarranted and an abuse of the legal process.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the review petition and imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 on the petitioner for filing a review petition that was considered unnecessary and an abuse of the legal process. The judgment underscores the importance of following due process and the limited scope of invoking the jurisdiction of review based on the Civil Procedure Code.