9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 467 - SCH - Central ExciseDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel - withdrawal of exemption N/N. 71 of 2003 dated 09.09.2003 - HELD THAT - The petitioner(s) to file such review petition making it clear that we are not expressing any opinion either way on the correctness of this submission. If that issue is answered against the petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) may take up the matter before this Court to challenge the view taken by the High Court in review petition and in which proceedings (before this Court), it will be open to the petitioner(s) to urge that the decision of UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES 2019 (9) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT requires reconsideration. We are not expressing any opinion about the correctness of the submission made even in respect of the second point urged before us by the petitioner(s) - The special leave petition is disposed off.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of a previous judgment in a specific case. 2. Request for reconsideration of the previous judgment. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed two main points raised during the proceedings. Firstly, it was contended that the statement made by the petitioner's counsel before the High Court regarding a previous judgment was incorrect. The Court noted that in the current case's unique circumstances, it was possible to distinguish the previous decision due to the application of a different notification. Secondly, the petitioner sought a reconsideration of the previous judgment by claiming that it was per incuriam. The Court acknowledged this request but directed the petitioner to first pursue a review petition before the High Court on the grounds of distinguishing the previous judgment. The Court granted permission for the petitioner to file a review petition, emphasizing that no opinion was being expressed on the correctness of the submission. If the review petition outcome was unfavorable, the petitioner could approach the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court's decision, allowing for arguments on the reconsideration of the previous judgment. The Court clarified that no opinion was being given on the second point raised by the petitioner. Ultimately, the special leave petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved in the judgment.
|
