9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by this Court. Mr. Sridharan submits that the essential ground on which review is sought is that the respondent filed an appeal being Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 25th June, 2014, dismissed the Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013. This Court held that the Tribunal's order and view taken cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in the very proceedings and between same parties, the same order of the Appellate Tribunal has been upheld by this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Repro India Limited v. Union of India reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 and another judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Sharp Menthol India Limited - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 212. Thus, this Court held that the exempted goods (tractors) can be exported under Bond/Undertaking-1 in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that by virtue of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the provisions of Rule 6(1) and 6(3) are not applicable in respect of excisable goods cleared with payment of duty for export under bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipes and Industries Limited - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.). (5) Shree Mahavir Metal Works v. Union of India - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 580 (S.C.). (6) Wallace Flour Mills Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kantharia appearing for the respondents submits that there is no substance in the review petition. He submits that a review cannot be equated with an appeal or a revision. In an appeal, the entire matter can be reconsidered. It is possible to re-appreciate and reappraise all findings and conclusions in an appeal. That is a very wide jurisdiction. In a revision application it is open for the court to find out as to whether the conclusions are perverse or they are vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In such an exercise, the Court can peruse the entire record and not just the judgment under review. The scope of a review is very limited and it cannot be converted into either a full-fledged appeal or a revision. Its ambit cannot be enlarged and by inviting the Court to go behind the judgment under review. An elaborate exercise and which is permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be" characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for parent error." (emphasis ours) 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC 455) while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047) this Court once again held that 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, CPC. 9. Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute : "(A) When the review will be maintainable :- (i) Discovery of new and important material or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 113 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1995) 1 SCR 520 : (AIR 1954 SC 526), to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275 : (2013 AIR SCW 2905). (B) When the review will not be maintainable :- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnal page 55 of the judgment under review. We have, on a reading of Rule 6, held that the Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Then we have referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 and which is containing a non-obstante clause and held that the manufacturer or provider of output service opting not to maintain separate accounts would have to follow either of the conditions as applicable to him and set out in Rule 6(3)(a)(b). Then we have referred to sub-rules (4) and (5). Thereafter in paragraph 64, we have referred to the concurrent findings against the assessee/petitioner before us. In paragraph 65, we have referred to Rule 6(2) and in paragraph 66 we concluded that since the excisable goods removed without payment of duty were cleared for export under Bond in terms of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, that the conclusion based on M/s. Repro India Limited and rendered by the Tribunal was not interfered with. The same conclusion was relied upon in support of the writ petitions and the appeals of the assessee by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as to how the reliance placed on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. (supra) is misplaced that from paragraphs 78 onwards in the judgment under review we came to the conclusion that in Sharp Menthol India Ltd. Rule 6(6)(v) has been referred but while referring it the Division Bench omitted some crucial words from its consideration. We have held that, with respect, the words in Rule 6(6) and relevant for our purpose are 'excisable goods' and not 'exempt goods'. The Rules have been correctly referred in M/s. Repro India Ltd. as is clear from paragraph 9 thereof. 17. However, in the case of M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. this sub-rule has been held to be referring to "exempted goods". That is why we have given somewhat detailed attention to the conclusions reached in M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. in paragraphs 80 to 83 of the judgment under review. That was to caution everybody concerned about its applicability. 18. However, independent of all this, in paragraph 84 we have concluded that all matters arose firstly before the amendment to the Central Excise Act, 1944 by which sub-section (1A) was inserted in Section 5A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
