TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce based on PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. VERSUS THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERCUM- ASSESSING AUTHORITY ORS. [ 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] in as much as the adjudication of the show cause notice took more than 11 long years for which there appears to be no explanation. In fact, the writ petitions were dismissed in limine only on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the issue of violation of principles of natural justice. Review petition allowed. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari And Hon'ble Shri Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta For the Petitioner : Shri P. M. Choudhary Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The writ petition was filed challenging the adjudication order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Kandla (Gujarat), imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,72,02,660/- under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition was dismissed in limine merely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal which suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record sofaras, it runs contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., Vs. The Excise Taxation Officer- cum- Assessing Authority reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 95 and Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Mark ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... according to the judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra) the petitioners had been able to carve out an exception to entertain the writ petition. The petitioners being aggrieved had approached the Apex Court who in turn had granted liberty to file the review and bring this fact to the notice of this Court. The Apex Court had passed the following order:- Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would point out that the impugned order shows a patent error insofar as it does not even record reference to the correct facts and prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions with liberty to file review before the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests formulated above. 26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
