9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. A Division Bench (to which one of us was a party) by order dated September 9, 2011 had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the case came within the purview of an order relating to determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs. The Division Bench was of the view that Section 130 of the Customs Act, therefore, is not attracted in view of Section 130(1) of the Act. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal had made it very clear that it had not entered into the merits of the case and the dismissal of the appeal would not stand in the way of the appellant to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 2. Long thereafter the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that even if review is maintainable, the case as made out by the petitioner does not answer the settled parameters within which an application of this sort is permitted. On merits, Mr. Khaitan argues that there is no mistake apparent on record for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction of review. According to him, the basic question which was decided by the Tribunal below was whether the imported goods were manufactured so as to attract the charge of excise duty at the rates specified in the Central Excise Tariff and secondly, additional duty of customs equal to such excise duty. Mr. Khaitan further submits that determination of any question have no relation to the rate of customs duty included within its determination of a question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate process of reasoning and cases scrutiny and examination, cannot be held to be an error apparent on record. That may be an error for which a party aggrieved may invoke an appellate jurisdiction, but cannot seek review. However, every error is not an error apparent on the face of the record calling for an exercise of review jurisdiction of the said court. In the case of M/s. Tungbhadra Industries v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372, a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had held that there is a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which should be characterised as vitiated by error apparent and review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
