Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

2015 (10) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Review petition against order previous order passed [2015 (9) TMI 403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Contradictory judgments [2015 (1) TMI 673 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and [2015 (9) TMI 403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Applicability of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Court earlier held that 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 Ru .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respect of which are dutiable, their clearance by giving Bond under Rule 19 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is permissible. We have reached our own conclusions as to why the judgment in the case of Repro India Ltd. cannot be of any assistance to the assessees - Our conclusion may be or may not be erroneous. However, we cannot reconsider or correct the same in the garb of a review. We are not deciding an appeal and, therefore, will not be in a position to refer to the record all over again. < .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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.

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 the same. We have also reached the conclusion that Cenvat credit cannot be availed of in case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Counsel with Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. Shri Vijay Kantharia with Jitendra B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER These review petitions seek a review of a judgment and order which has been pronounced on 9th September, 2014, in two Central Excise Appeals and three Writ Petitions which raise common questions of fact and law. 2. Mr. Sridharan, learned senior counsel appearing in support of these review petitions submits t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 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 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

However, in the judgment/order under review, this Court has held that Rule 6(6)(v) will not assist the review petitioners. Thus, this Court has overlooked the judgment passed in these very proceedings. 3. Mr. Sridharan submits that for pointing out this inconsistency, nothing more except some paragraphs of the judgment under review and the judgment referred above have to be noted. 4. Mr. Sridharan submits that there is no distinction and in law inasmuch as the words employed in Rule 6( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmits that in a cognate matter and in which a conflicting view has been taken, then, this Court has not found any error or defect in the judgments of M/s. Repro India Ltd. and M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. These judgments having been followed in one case by the same Bench and between same parties, in another case they could not have been ignored or brushed aside. In any event, if this Court desires to differ therefrom, it should have referred the matter to a Larger Bench. For all these reasons h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(1) Union of India v. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 212 (Bom.) (2) Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614. (3) Vee Kayan Industries v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.). (4) Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Prakash Pipes 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se 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 permissible in the above jurisdictions cannot be undertaken. If these tests .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt has taken a view with which the petitioners do not agree. However, for correction of that view they would have to approach a higher court. In the garb of a review this Court cannot be called upon to revisit all the factual and legal conclusions. For these reasons he would submit that the review petition be dismissed. 8. For properly appreciating these contentions, first of all it is necessary to outline the ambit and scope of the powers conferred in this Court and of review. The Hon ble .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court, in Parsion Devi & Ors. v. Sunitri Devi & Ors. - (1997) 8 SCC 715, held as under : 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372) this Court opined : What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September, 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an error apparent on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal is disguise . ……………… 14. Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all erro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of Principles : 16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

holicos 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) Minor m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, if cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 9. It is in accordance with the above principles that we will have to decide these petitions. 10. We .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

given that the judgment of this Court in Repro India Limited v. Union of India (supra) is applicable and that covers the issue therein. This was noted in paragraph 6.2 of the order passed by the Tribunal and paragraph 8 thereof. Thus, the Tribunal s conclusion as rendered in its order dated 22nd June, 2012, was not interfered with. 12. We have explained that in our order dated 25th June, 2014, while dismissing the Revenue appeal being Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013. It was a conclusi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cumstances 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 befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upon in the main proceedings in which the judgment under review was rendered. However, the assessee s review petitions cannot be allowed by finding out any alleged contradictions or conflicting views in the judgment under review. That would require us to go behind our judgment under review. We would be required to once again consider the same arguments and the same contentions as have been noted in the main order. We have given our reasoning as to why the assessee - review petitioners cannot be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Division Bench of this Court was for the purpose of dealing with the essential controversy and whether in respect of exempted goods cleared for export and inputs in respect of which are dutiable, their clearance by giving Bond under Rule 19 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is permissible. We have reached our own conclusions as to why the judgment in the case of Repro India Ltd. cannot be of any assistance to the assessees (See paragraph 75 of the judgment under review). 15. Thus, the Divi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eals and writ petitions, we have given our reasons and it is during the course of recording them that we referred to the contentions of the petitioners herein. We referred to all the judgments cited by them. We have, independent of those judgments, held that the petitioners writ petitions and appeals cannot be allowed. While pointing out 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nthol 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) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Kantharia is, therefore, right in submitting that old contentions and arguments would not be enough for us to reopen a concluded matter. His reliance placed on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors. (supra) is apposite. 20. If the case was as clear as Mr. Sridharan appearing for the review petitioners points out, then, he was not required to make any alternate arguments in support of this review petition and place reliance on Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. His argument runs thu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version