2009 (3) TMI 352 - HC - Central Excise

Review of order of HC Circumstances in relied upon cases contended as innocuous - Besides, a circumstance may appear to be relevant in a given case, but it may not be so relevant in another case. It all depends on facts of each case. Quite often, it is the cumulative effect of all the circumstances which lead the court to conclude that one unit is a dummy unit of another. No hard and fast rules can be laid down. Appellant does not furnish a ground for review. contention that profit sharing ratio without basis, is not a ground for review conclusion that one of the units is dummy is based on several circumstances besides sharing of profit appellant has also submitted that Tribunal has not appreciated the ratio of one of the precedent decisions matter ought to have been remanded by Tribunal but not remanded and HC as contended, should have remanded the matter though judgment of SC was relevant, but it doesn t mean that matter must be remanded in every case moreover, legal principle of said judgment followed in impugned Tribunal order - it is not possible for us to hold that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or that there is any other sufficient reason for review. In our opinion, no case is made out for review. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment based on error apparent on the face of the record and reliance on legal principles from previous cases.

Analysis:
In this case, the review petitioners sought a review of the judgment and order dated 28-1-2009 delivered by the Bombay High Court. The review was requested on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners argued that a previous order by the Division Bench had directed the Tribunal to consider specific judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, which the Tribunal allegedly did not properly appreciate. The Supreme Court's judgment in the mentioned case emphasized the importance of correctly identifying the liable party for duty demands. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal should have followed a similar course and remanded the matter instead of confirming the duty demand against both units. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that the Tribunal had correctly applied the legal principle from the Supreme Court's judgment and justified its conclusion based on the evidence on record. The High Court highlighted that the necessity of remand in each case depends on the specific facts and circumstances.

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the Tribunal had relied on certain circumstances to conclude that one unit was a dummy unit of another, citing previous cases where similar circumstances were not considered relevant. The High Court, however, explained that the relevance of circumstances varies from case to case, and the cumulative effect of all circumstances is crucial in determining the relationship between units. The court emphasized that no strict rules could be established and rejected the argument that reliance on these circumstances was a ground for review.

Lastly, the petitioners contested the Tribunal's finding of 2% profit sharing between the units, claiming a lack of evidence to support this conclusion. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that apart from the profit-sharing aspect, several other circumstances supported the conclusion that one unit was a dummy of another. The court reiterated the various shared aspects between the units, such as premises, staff, and marketing agent, indicating a close connection between them.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petitions, finding no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason for review. The court emphasized the importance of considering the specific facts of each case and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles applied.