9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 940 - HC - Central ExcisePower of review of its own order by High Court - error apparent on the face of record or not - clandestine manufacturing and supply of scented tobacco to various manufactures - Review is sought for on the ground that Mr. Devi Prasad Pande, Partner of M/s Sarita Roadways has stated in his statement before the authority that he transported the scented tobacco to M/s. RS Industries and M/s. RS Company, which shows that both are the same companies, therefore, slight change in their name becomes insignificant. HELD THAT - There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Apex Court in the case of HARIDAS DAS VERSUS SMT. USHA RANI BANIK ORS 2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Perusal of the Order XLVII, Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment or an order could be sought (a) from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason. 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. There are no reason to review the order - review petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the order dated 22.04.2019 in CEA No.117/2018. 2. Verification of lorry receipts and independent entity status of companies. 3. Grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 4. Error apparent on the face of the record. Detailed Analysis: 1. Review of the Order Dated 22.04.2019 in CEA No.117/2018: The review petition was filed to reassess the order dated 22.04.2019 in CEA No.117/2018. The petitioner sought a review on the grounds that the court had not considered certain facts regarding the independent legal status of the companies involved. However, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review. 2. Verification of Lorry Receipts and Independent Entity Status of Companies: An investigation revealed clandestine manufacturing and supply of scented tobacco by M/s. Suresh Enterprises, Pune, to M/s. RS Company and M/s. RS Industries, Indore. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, demanded central excise duty based on recovered lorry receipts. The Tribunal (CESTAT) remitted the matter to re-calculate the demand. Upon re-calculation, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify all lorry receipts and raise duty demand only in the name of M/s. RS Companies / Shri Natwarlal Sharda. The petitioner argued that M/s. RS Company and M/s. RS Industries were not separate entities, but the court upheld the Tribunal's direction. 3. Grounds for Review Under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: The court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank and State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta, which outline the scope of review. A review can be sought on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and should not involve reappreciation of evidence or rehearing of the case. 4. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The court reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record must be evident without detailed examination. In the present case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate such an error. The court concluded that the petitioner was attempting to challenge the order under the guise of a review, which is not permissible. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to support its decision, stating that reappreciation of evidence and rehearing of the case without an apparent error on the face of the record is not allowed. Conclusion: The court dismissed the review petitions, finding no error apparent on the face of the record and no sufficient grounds for review. The order dated 22.04.2019 in CEA No.117/2018 was upheld, and no costs were awarded.
|
