9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 313 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of review petition - appropriate forum - Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC - HELD 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 in NENJING M. MARAK; SMT. PEJE CH. SANGMA; SHRI NENGJIN CH. SANGMA VERSUS GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL (GHADC) ; CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER (CEM) ; EXECUTIVE MEMBER (EM) ; SMT. KINTI CH. SANGMA, MEGHALAYA 2024 (3) TMI 1348 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT where it was held that ' The Review Applicant in the guise of the Review Petition wants this Bench to rewrite its Judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above review is not an appeal in disguise and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review.' Review Petition is dismissed.
Issues:
Review petition maintainability under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Analysis: The review petition was filed against an order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Central Ex. Ap. No. 3 of 2020. The petitioner, the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, approached the High Court after the Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 30097/2023, granting permission to file a review petition(s) before the High Court. The respondent contended that the appeal provision under Section 35G was repealed by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, and as per Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court, making the review not maintainable. The Court noted that the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of review, and only if the review is maintainable, the Court can entertain it and pass an appropriate order. The Court examined the statutory rights of the petitioner under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and concluded that the review was not maintainable. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that the scope of review is minimal and circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It was highlighted that the power of review is to correct errors, not to substitute a view, and cannot disturb the finality of a judgment. The Court cited various cases to establish that a review is not an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained for errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court further elaborated on the principles governing the power to review, emphasizing that errors must be self-evident and not require a lengthy process of reasoning. The judgment under review cannot be reversed or altered to take away rights declared by the Court. The Court referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions, stating that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be an appeal in disguise. The Court dismissed the review petition, citing the recent Supreme Court decision that reiterated the limited scope of review and the necessity for substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a departure from the finality of a judgment. In conclusion, the Court found no merits in the review petition and dismissed it accordingly. The Court emphasized that a review petition cannot reargue questions already decided and must be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. The Court's decision was based on the principles that errors must be self-evident and that a review cannot be permitted to rewrite a judgment or act as an appeal in disguise.
|
