9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3 of 2020, the petitioner namely, the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax has approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court by an order dated 04.09.2023 disposed of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 30097/2023 which reads as follows: "Learned panel advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that having regard to a three judge bench decision of this Court passed in the year 2019 [Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in (2019) 6 SCC 693] permission may be granted to the petitioner to file a review petition(s) before the High Court as the aforesaid three judge bench judgment is contrary to the relied upon judgment in 2021 SCC online Meghalaya 154 of the High Court. In view of the aforesaid s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner herein to approach the Court by way of review and only if the review is maintainable, this Court can entertain and pass appropriate order. 3. In view of the submissions made by the parties, we are of the view that in the light of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act of 1944, the petitioner statutory right is only before the Supreme Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Order 47 Rule 1 is applicable, the review is not maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by this Court dated 15.03.2024 in Review Petition No. 1 of 2024 and the same is extracted below:- "4. It is now fairly well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is very minimal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may conceivably be two opinions." 6. Furthermore, in R. Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP. No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018, one of us (SVNJ) sitting at the High Court of Madras elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows: "7. The basic principle to entertain t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urbed." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows: "The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment. 5. The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot be disturbed. 6. Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of reasoning on point. 10. The above are some of the basic principles on which the power to review rests. The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative. 11. To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicants need to satisfy three basic requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
