Error apparent in review proceedings where omitted facts showed monthly excise duty payment and supported the assessee's case.

Review was allowed because the earlier order had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding excise duty payment. The Court accepted that the assessee was entitled to pay duty on a monthly basis for the relevant period, and that payment had in fact been made, though belatedly, pursuant to the departmental demand. As these material facts were not placed before the Court earlier, the omission created an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier order was reviewed, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order in favour of the assessee was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to pay excise duty on a monthly basis for the relevant period and whether the earlier order dismissing the appeal of the Revenue suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record in overlooking that position and the belated payment made pursuant to departmental demand.

Analysis: The order sought to be reviewed had proceeded on the footing that excise duty had to be paid on each consignment basis and that non-compliance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 disentitled reliance on the Bombay High Court decision. On review, the Court accepted that the assessee's right to pay excise duty on a monthly basis was available for the relevant period, and that duty had in fact been paid, though belatedly, pursuant to the departmental demand. These material facts had not been brought to the Court's notice earlier, and their omission caused the earlier order to rest on an erroneous factual premise.

Conclusion: The assessee's case was accepted, the earlier order was reviewed, and the Revenue's appeal stood dismissed with confirmation of the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The decision turned on correction of an error apparent arising from an incomplete factual basis, resulting in restoration of the assessee's success before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A review is warranted where a judgment rests on an incorrect factual premise and material facts showing compliance with the applicable payment regime were not placed before the Court.

---