Inherent High Court review power survives under special excise appeals, and a retrospective amendment can justify recall.

A High Court, as a court of record under Article 215, retains inherent power to review its appellate order under the Central Excise Act unless that power is clearly excluded, and the absence of an express review clause does not by itself bar review. A retrospective amendment to Section 35G may create an error apparent on the face of the record where the earlier order rested on the unamended position. On the facts described, the short four-day delay in filing the appeal was supported by sufficient cause and was condoned, so the prior refusal to entertain the appeal was reviewed and the appeal directed to be registered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court has power to review its decision in an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 even in the absence of an express review provision. (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment to Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the facts of the case justified review and condonation of the short delay in filing the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court has power to review its decision in an appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 even in the absence of an express review provision.

Analysis: The High Court is a court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and possesses inherent power to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The special appellate scheme under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with subsection (9), does not exclude the ordinary incidents of procedure applicable to the High Court, and the ordinary rules of practice and procedure include the power of review. The absence of an express review clause does not defeat such power where it is available by necessary implication.

Conclusion: The High Court had power to review its earlier order.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment to Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the facts of the case justified review and condonation of the short delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: A retrospective amendment operates as if the amended provision always existed, and an earlier order rendered on the basis of the unamended position may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The delay in filing the appeal was only four days, and sufficient cause was shown for its condonation. In these circumstances, the earlier order refusing to entertain the appeal was liable to be reviewed and the delay could be condoned.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment supported review, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Final Conclusion: The review petition succeeded, the prior order was reconsidered, and the appeal was directed to be registered after condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court seized of an appeal under a special fiscal enactment retains inherent power of review as a court of record, unless clearly excluded, and a retrospective amendment may furnish an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.

---