9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 222 - SC - Central ExciseIf there is a bona fide doubt the extended period of limitation available under Section 11A of the Act does not apply? Held that - There is no quarrel with this proposition that if there is a bona fide doubt the extended period of limitation available under Section 11A of the Act does not apply. But the question is whether such a plea was in fact urged. From a reading of the order of the High Court and the counter affidavit filed before this Court in which it has been specifically urged at paragraphs 9 and 10 that no such argument was advanced, we do not consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for, considering the limited scope of review. Appeal dismissed. 11.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of Review Petition by High Court after the judgment of Division Bench. 2. Grounds for entertaining a review petition. 3. Justification for dismissing the review petition. 4. Argument regarding the plea on limitation. 5. Scope of review and grounds for interference. Issue 1: Dismissal of Review Petition by High Court after the judgment of Division Bench The appeal challenged the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that dismissed the Review Petition filed by the appellants. The Writ Petition filed by the appellants was disposed of by an order dated 3-3-1994, seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Indore. The High Court quashed orders related to the imposition of penalty, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The appellants sought to challenge the demand of duty based on Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but the Supreme Court held that only recorded arguments could be considered. Issue 2: Grounds for entertaining a review petition A review petition was filed before the High Court, contending that the Court had permitted filing a review based on observations made by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court noted that no such ground was taken in the writ petition, and the counsel for the appellants conceded the same. The High Court emphasized that a review could only be entertained if the ground was raised in the original writ petition and omitted by the Court. Issue 3: Justification for dismissing the review petition The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating that no ground for review existed as the specific ground was not raised in the original writ petition. The appellants argued that the stand was taken in the amended writ petition, but the High Court found no justification for review based on the limited nature of the review. Issue 4: Argument regarding the plea on limitation The appellants contended that although the plea on limitation was indirectly made, it was not specifically taken in the writ petition. The High Court and the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court confirmed that no such argument was advanced. The Court emphasized the importance of a clear plea and held that no interference was warranted due to the limited scope of review. Issue 5: Scope of review and grounds for interference The scope of review was discussed, emphasizing that a review is not an appeal in disguise but lies only for patent error. The Court highlighted the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment cited precedents to support the limited grounds for review and the necessity for a clear and specific plea to warrant interference. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, considering the lack of a specific plea and the limited scope of review. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of the Review Petition, emphasizing the importance of specific grounds for review and the limited scope of interference in such cases. The judgment highlighted the necessity of a clear and specific plea to warrant a review and reiterated the principles governing the scope of review based on legal precedents and established principles of law.
|
