9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1154 - HC - Central ExciseReview of order - case of petitioners is 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Service Tax were dismissed on account of letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was not in existence at all and the same was withdrawn in the year 2006 - Held that - This Court has certainly taken into account the letter dated 5-6.12.2005. The aforesaid letter was not in existence and this fact was brought to the knowledge of Commissioner of Central Excise by the Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone. The fact remains, 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 petition allowed.
Issues:
Review of order dated 31.01.2018 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 review petitioners argued that the appeals by the Commissioner were dismissed due to a letter dated 5-6.12.2005, which was later withdrawn in 2006. The petitioners claimed the letter was not in existence and was not on record during the arguments. An affidavit by a Senior Officer supported this claim. The judgment referred to the letter exempting cotton waste from duty. The Apex Court's decision in Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise was also cited. The Tribunal concluded that obtaining cotton waste did not constitute manufacture, and the waste was exempted from duty. The judgment dismissed the appeals as no substantial question of law was found. The Development Commissioner's letter confirmed the withdrawal of the letter dated 5-6.12.2005, stating that the Commissioner of Central Excise was informed about the withdrawal. However, the respondent claimed they were not informed about it. The Court acknowledged the non-existence of the letter and recalled the judgment due to an error on the face of the record. Consequently, all three review petitions were allowed and disposed of, with the appeals restored to their original status for further proceedings.
|
