2018 (10) TMI 699 - HC - Central Excise

Review petitions - error apparent on the face of record - petitioners argued that the appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax were dismissed on account of letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was not in existence at all and the same was withdrawn in the year 2006, itself - Held that - Whether the respondents were informed or not, the letter dated 5-6.12.2005 was not in existence based upon which the judgment has been delivered. Resultantly, as there is an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review, the judgment delivered by this Court dated 31.1.2018 is hereby recalled. All these appeals are restored to their original number and be listed before this Court on 26th November, 2018. Review petitions allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of order dated 31.01.2018 passed in CEA No.31 of 2017, CEA No.32 of 2017, and CEA No.34 of 2017 based on the existence of a letter dated 5-6.12.2005.

Analysis:
The High Court heard the review petitions analogously due to the similarity in the issues involved. The review petition arose from an order dated 31.01.2018 in three cases. The petitioners argued that the appeals were dismissed based on a letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was withdrawn in 2006 and not on record. An affidavit supported this claim. The judgment referred to the letter and its contents, which were crucial in the decision. The Assistant Development Commissioner's letter clarified the duty exemption for cotton waste under Notification No.23/2003-CE. The Tribunal held that obtaining cotton waste did not constitute manufacturing. The Apex Court's decision in Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. case was also cited. The High Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.

The court considered the letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was later found to be non-existent. The Development Commissioner's letter to the Central Excise Commissioner confirmed the withdrawal of the said letter. The respondent was also informed about the withdrawal. The respondent argued they were not informed, but the court found that the non-existence of the letter was crucial to the judgment. Due to the error on record, the court recalled the judgment and restored the appeals for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the review petitions were allowed, and the judgment dated 31.01.2018 was recalled. The court acknowledged the error regarding the non-existent letter dated 5-6.12.2005, leading to the decision to restore the appeals for further consideration on a specified date.