Court upholds distinction between excisable & exempt goods, dismisses review petitions under limited review jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the review petitions, finding no patent error on the face of the record. It upheld the distinction between excisable and exempt goods, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The court reiterated that review is not for re-hearing or reappraising the case and declined to entertain new arguments based on Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Patent error on the face of the record.
2. Applicability of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Distinction between excisable and exempt goods.
4. Scope and ambit of review jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Patent Error on the Face of the Record:
The petitioners argued that the judgment under review overlooked a previous judgment in the same proceedings, creating an inconsistency. The court had earlier dismissed Central Excise Appeal No. 39 of 2013, upholding the Tribunal's order based on precedents from Repro India Limited and Sharp Menthol India Limited. The petitioners contended that the court's subsequent decision contradicted this by holding that Rule 6(6)(v) would not assist them, thus creating a patent error on the face of the record.

2. Applicability of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The petitioners emphasized that Rule 6(6)(v) should apply to their case as it allows exempted goods to be exported under Bond/Undertaking-1, arguing that the term "excisable goods" in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, includes exempt goods. They cited several judgments to support this interpretation. However, the court in its judgment under review had concluded that Rule 6(6)(v) does not apply to the petitioners, a point which the petitioners sought to challenge.

3. Distinction between Excisable and Exempt Goods:
The court had noted a distinction between excisable and exempt goods in its judgment under review, which the petitioners argued was incorrect. They contended that all excisable goods are covered by the definition in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus exempt goods should not be treated as a distinct category. The court, however, maintained that the terms "excisable goods" and "exempt goods" are distinct and that Rule 6(6)(v) refers specifically to "excisable goods."

4. Scope and Ambit of Review Jurisdiction:
The court outlined the limited scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that a review is not an appeal or revision and cannot be used to reappraise the entire case. The court referred to the Supreme Court's principles, stating that a review lies only for a patent error and not for re-hearing an erroneous decision. The court concluded that the petitioners were attempting to reargue the same points that had already been considered and decided, which is not permissible in a review.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review petitions, stating that the petitioners' arguments did not reveal any patent error on the face of the record. The court reiterated that the distinction between excisable and exempt goods was correctly noted in the judgment under review and that the scope of review jurisdiction does not allow for re-hearing or reappraising the entire case. The petitioners' reliance on Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the cited judgments were considered fresh arguments that could not be entertained in a review. Thus, the review petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.

---