TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits a procedural irregularity which goes to the root of the matter, the case would be fit for review. Therefore, we need not even ask the review applicants to demonstrate that the order passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. Hence, the review application is allowed. - Decided in favour of review applicant - Review Application (MD) No. 61 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2014 - V. Ramasubramanian and V.M. Velumani, JJ. Shri R. Aravindan, for the Petitioner. Shri Vijay Narayanan, Senior Counsel for Ms. L. Mythili, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Ramasubramanian, J.]. - The Commissioner of Central Excise and C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter affidavit contending that the writ petition was not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the investigation revealed unlawful availing of input credit and that the respondent cannot claim refund of an amount voluntarily paid. 5. The learned Judge before whom the writ petition came up was informed by the learned Standing Counsel for the review applicants that they would complete the investigation on or before 30-11-2013 and that they would issue a show cause notice. In view of the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the review applicants, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition, by an order dated 8-11-2013. The operative portion of the order of the learned Judge reads as follows : 9. In view of the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondent and directed the review applicants to refund the amount within two weeks. The Division Bench also held that if the amount was not paid within two weeks, the same will carry interest. 7. Contending that the order was passed even at the stage of admission, without sufficient opportunity to them, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs has come up with this review application. 8. Though the review applicants have raised about six grounds for seeking a review of the order in question, none of the grounds, except only one, would fall within the parameters of order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, we shall deal with the said ground alone. 9. According to the review applicants, the writ appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review 12. Therefore, in view of what is stated by the Supreme Court, we need not even ask the review applicants to demonstrate that the order passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review. Hence, the review application is allowed, the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
