9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT], held that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. First thing that would be seen to entertain a review petition is that an order of which review is sought, suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the order to stand would lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such order, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of the party or could not be prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without payment of duty. It is argued that this aspect of the matter in the context of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2002 has not been considered and decided by the Division Bench. It is further argued that non-grant of credit benefit in the Cenvat account would be discriminatory qua the petitioner as merely because he has not opted for Rule 19 straightaway at the first instance which permits export of excisable goods without payment of duty and opted for Rule 18 under bona fide belief for claiming rebate by first paying the duty on the excisable goods used as inputs in the manufacture of goods exported and also the duty on the excisable goods exported, it cannot be made to suffer excise duty which is otherwise not leviable. 3. This review pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and under his supervision, goods are to be exported, which is not done in the instant case. 4. It is settled proposition of law that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. The Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRS v. Motilal (dead) through LRS [(2009) 14 SCC 663], held that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. First thing that would be seen to entertain a review petition is that an order of which review is sought, suffers from an error apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
