Court dismisses review petition under Civil Procedure Code, imposes cost on petitioner for abuse of process

The court dismissed the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking review of an order passed in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011. The court found no apparent error on the face of the record to warrant review and emphasized compliance with Tribunal observations. It deemed the review petition unnecessary and an abuse of legal process, imposing a cost of Rs.20,000 on the petitioner. The judgment highlights adherence to due process and the limited scope of review jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code.

---

---

Issues:
Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking review of the order passed in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011 without framing substantial question of law.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of an order passed in Central Excise Appeal No.22/2011. The appellant raised a ground that the order passed by the Tribunal was in violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court as it was to be passed after recording the evidence. The appellant had filed an application seeking rectification of the mistake apparent on the face of the record, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, subsequent developments led to the Additional Commissioner directing an examination of the products cleared by the appellant. In light of these developments, the court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal until the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner as per the directions issued.

Regarding the issue of not framing a substantial question of law, the court noted that although no specific substantial question of law was framed, the question of law involved was whether the Tribunal could pass an order in violation of the Supreme Court's order. The subsequent developments, including the application filed by the appellant under Section 35 (c) (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the observations made by the Tribunal, were taken into consideration by the department. The court found no apparent error on the face of the record to invoke the jurisdiction of review, which is limited. The court emphasized that the department had complied with the Tribunal's observations by issuing a letter, and since the appeal had been disposed of in line with that letter, the review petition was deemed unwarranted and an abuse of the legal process.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the review petition and imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 on the petitioner for filing a review petition that was considered unnecessary and an abuse of the legal process. The judgment underscores the importance of following due process and the limited scope of invoking the jurisdiction of review based on the Civil Procedure Code.

---