9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 987 - HC - Central ExciseNatural justice - opportunity to the noticee to cross examine the witnesses - rehearing of case - error apparent on the face of record - Held that - the Apex Court has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason - In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. The Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. 2008 (6) TMI 578 - Supreme Court Of India , has held that a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination - In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits. The scope of review has held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained U/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the order dated 18.05.2017 in Central Excise Appeal No.33/2016. 2. Comparison with the decision in W.P.No.1701/2016. 3. Principles governing the review of judicial orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Review of the Order Dated 18.05.2017 in Central Excise Appeal No.33/2016: The Review Petition was filed to reconsider the order dated 18.05.2017, where the court directed the Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax to allow the noticee to cross-examine witnesses before passing a final order. The petitioner sought a review, arguing that the court had erred in its decision. 2. Comparison with the Decision in W.P.No.1701/2016: The petitioner referenced another case, W.P.No.1701/2016, where the court had rejected a similar request for cross-examination of witnesses. However, the court noted that the dismissal in W.P.No.1701/2016 was at the motion stage and was based on the observation that the noticee sought to delay proceedings. This dismissal in limine was not considered a binding precedent. 3. Principles Governing the Review of Judicial Orders: The court extensively discussed the legal principles governing the review of judicial orders, citing several Supreme Court judgments: - Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (2006) 4 SCC 78: The court emphasized that a review could be sought for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent was highlighted, noting that a review is not an appeal in disguise but is limited to correcting patent errors. - State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 612: The court outlined the conditions under which a review could be granted, including the discovery of new and relevant evidence that was not previously available despite due diligence. The term "mistake or error apparent" was clarified to mean an error evident per se from the record, not requiring detailed examination or reasoning. - Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs (2009) 14 SCC 663: The court reiterated that review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Errors that require long reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence do not qualify for review. - S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464: The court stated that an error apparent on the face of the record must be manifest and not require further investigation. The review is permissible if the error is self-evident and palpable. The court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the original order dated 18.05.2017. The review petition was seen as an attempt to challenge the merits of the decision rather than pointing out a patent error. Conclusion: The review petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The court reaffirmed that re-appreciation of evidence or rehearing the case without a manifest error is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. The connected matters were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
