9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handra, J. S. Yaswanth for the Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff K. Thiruvengadam, R.M. Muthukumar, GA for the Respondent ORDER K. Chandra, J:- 1. The review application is filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Salem to review the order dated 18th June, 2010 passed by this court in W.P. No. 4802 of 2009. By the order under review, this Court gave a direction to the review Petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.45,264, which was wrongly deducted and remitted to the Central Excise Department, within a time frame, but no interest was directed to be paid. The order itself came to be made on the basis of the written instructions received from the first Respondent in the writ petition and the second Respondent not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced any document evidencing payment of Service Tax made by him in the Government account as per Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable. It was also stated that when the second Respondent TASMAC filed a refund claim for Rs.45,264 in respect of the Service Tax paid by them for the period from 1st April, 2004 to 31" December, 2004, the said claim was made only on 1st March, 2010. After adjudication, the review Petitioner has passed an order-in-original, dated 17th May, 2010 in Sl.No.103/ 2010 and had rejected the refund claim as it was time barred. Though the second Respondent had received the said order on 22nd May, 2010, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication has to be allowed. 7. Further, the Supreme Court while dealing with the power of review in passing the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, vide judgment in Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands reported in (2005) 13 SCC 289 had held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows:- 15. .....Law is well-settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. 16. The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
