2014 (9) TMI 612 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds dismissal of review petition on duty re-credit rules, emphasizes export process requirements

RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court dismissed a review petition challenging the dismissal of three writ petitions related to the re-credit of duty paid on exported goods under ... Review petition - Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Simultaneous benefit of rebate on finished goods and inputs used in manufacturing of such goods on export - Whether, the word “or” used in Rule 18 should be read as “and” because under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- It is settled proposition of law that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. The Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through LRS v. Motilal (dead) through LRS [2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT], held that an application of review would lie only when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. First thing that would be seen to entertain a review petition is that an order of which review is sought, suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the order to stand would lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such order, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Rehearing of matter in the guise of review is impermissible in law - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Review of judgment dated 1-10-2012 dismissing three writ petitions.2. Consideration of Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. Applicability of review petition based on error apparent on the face of the record.4. Interpretation of the Supreme Court judgments regarding the power of review.Analysis:1. The judgment in question pertains to a review petition seeking to challenge the dismissal of three writ petitions by the Division Bench. The petitioner argued that one of the writ petitions had a distinct aspect related to the re-credit of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner contended that the non-grant of credit benefit in the Cenvat account would be discriminatory. However, the Division Bench had already considered and decided the issues raised in the review petition, emphasizing the differences between Rule 18 and Rule 19. The court rejected the specific argument related to Rule 19 in one of the writ petitions, highlighting the essential requirement of Rule 19 regarding the presence of a department official during the export process.2. The legal principles governing the power of review were extensively discussed in the judgment. It was noted that a review can only be entertained if the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, leading to a failure of justice. The Supreme Court's rulings emphasized that the power of review cannot be used to re-hear a matter or sit in appeal over its own order. Additionally, the discovery of new and important evidence not previously known could be a valid ground for review. The judgment cited various Supreme Court cases to support these principles, highlighting the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record.3. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the Division Bench's order to warrant a review. Citing the legal standards and precedents discussed, the court dismissed the review petition, affirming the finality of the previous judgment. The decision was based on the lack of any glaring mistake that would necessitate a review, in line with the established legal framework governing the power of review in judicial proceedings.