9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority made in its Ruling dated 31.03.2017. Initially, when the review petitioners preferred an appeal before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), New Delhi, that appeal stood rejected by the concerned Authority as 'not admissible' and as 'non maintainable'. Against the said order of rejection by the AAR, when the review petitioners filed writ petition, the same came to be dismissed, thereby again upholding the Advance Ruling dated 31.03.2017 and the classification of the goods imported / sought to be imported by the Importer/respondent herein is under Chapter 21 and not under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Heading. 4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that though the Advance Ruling obtained by the respondent / Importer was binding on them under Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods imported by the Importer did not match with the said Advance Ruling dated 31.03.2017. It is pertinent to note that when a batch of writ petitions were filed by the respondent/Importer before this Court in W.P.Nos.30426, 26225 & 27828 of 2022, the learned Single Judge has in detail discussed about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this count, the said respondents cannot contend otherwise. 17. Therefore, looked from any angle, the ruling dated 31st March 2017 passed by the AAR in the petitioner's own case is binding under Section 28 J(1) on the petitioner and the respondents as there being no change in law post the said decision and the said decision having been accepted by the respondents in the absence of any further challenge before the higher forum. 18. Now coming to the contention of the respondent on alternate remedy, the respondents have relied on various decisions, which in our view, are not applicable to the facts of the present petition. The decision relied upon by the respondents pertains to the challenge at the show cause notice stage where the jurisdiction was not under challenge. On the contrary, the decision relied upon by the respondents in case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Commercial Steel Ltd.3 holds that an assessee can invoke writ jurisdiction if the action is in excess of jurisdiction. In the instant case, as observed by us, the respondents have passed the O-I-0 contrary to the provisions of Section 281 of the Act and, therefore, the same is without j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d person," may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect. 1 In view of the said legal position, the Review Petitioners who claimed to be the "aggrieved persons" by the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2022, were permitted to file Review Petitions and were heard by the Court. 8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, let us regurgitate the well settled law on the scope of 1 (2019) 18 SCC 586, Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Others review as contemplated in Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order XLVII of CPC. 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result......... A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace." 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 8. This Court also perused the recent judgment, dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice in W.A.Nos.3647 and 3648 of 2024 in an identical case as that of the respondent/Importer, whereby the appeals filed by the review petitioners in reclassifying the 'arecanuts' under Chapter 8 came to be dismissed, thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
