TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r - it is not possible for us to hold that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or that there is any other sufficient reason for review. In our opinion, no case is made out for review. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed. - 4 and 5 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2009 - Ranjana Desai and J.P. Devadhar, JJ. S/Shri Arshad Hidayatullah, Sr. Counsel with Anupam Dighe, Ms. Aarti Sathe and Ricab Chand, for the Petitioner. Shri Rohit Pardeshi, for the Respondent. [Order]. - P.C. : In this review petition, review is sought of judgment and order dated 28-1-2009 delivered by us in Central Excise Appeal No. 229 of 2008 along with Central Excise Appeal No. 230 of 2008 [2009 (238) E.L.T. 235 (Bom.)]. 2. It is well settled that a judgment can be reviewed if the review petitioner satisfies the court that there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due deligence was not within the knowledge of or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or review is necessary for any other sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessees and, implicitly recognized their independent existence. The Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Pune, to hear and decide the show cause notices afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court permitted the parties to file additional documents, if they so desired. The Supreme Court made it clear that the remand is now unlimited and the matters shall be decided without reference either to the order of the Tribunal under appeal or the earlier order of the Collector. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should have, therefore, followed the same course and remanded the matter. He submitted that since the Tribunal failed to do so, this court should have set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. We find that the Tribunal, in fact, considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Fabrics' case (supra) and after correctly appreciating its ratio observed as under : "8. In the case of M/s. Gajanan Fabrics Distributors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Collector has recorded the finding which has been upheld by the Tribunal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been confirmed by the Supreme Court. A list of those judgments have been tendered in the court. We have also been given copies thereof. We may reproduce the list of the judgments tendered in the court along with the gist of circumstances. Circumstance Judgment considering this a innocuous circumstance Both the appellants have their premises in the same block - Renu Tandon v. Union of India [1993 (66) E.L.T. 375 (Raj.)] - Bentex Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi [2003 (151) E.L.T. 695 (Tri.-Del.) - Commissioner v. Bentex Industries [2004 (173) E.L.T. A79 (S.C.) - Meteor Satellite Ltd. v. Collector [1985 (22) E.L.T. 271] The property tax, water charges and other charges relating to the entire premises occupied by both the appellants are paid by the appellants Ms. Harnik Food Industries. - Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd . v. Collector of C. Ex . [1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 (Tribunal)]. - Collector v. Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. [1992 (62) E.L.T. A119 (S.C) - Pimpri Gases [1990 (49) E.L.T. 474] The office staff is common for both the appellants and their salary is paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds on which an order can be reviewed. Assuming Mr. Hidayatullah is right, this submission does not furnish a ground for review. Besides, a circumstance may appear to be relevant in a given case, but it may not be so relevant in another case. It all depends on facts of each case. Quite often, it is the cumulative effect of all the circumstances which lead the court to conclude that one unit is a dummy unit of another. No hard and fast rules can be laid down. This submission of Mr. Hidayatullah must, therefore, fail. 9. Lastly Mr. Hidayatullah submitted that the Tribunal has held that there is 2% profit sharing between the two units. Learned counsel urged that there was no material before the Tribunal to come to this conclusion and, therefore, this court could not have confirmed this finding. He submitted that if there is factual assertion made by the Commissioner, the evidence to substantiate the same must be given by the Department. This was not done. Besides, this allegation was not made in the show cause notice. In our opinion, this cannot be a ground for review. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of our order, we have narrated several circumstances apart from 2% profit sharing whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
