Review lies only for an apparent error on the record; a concluded finding on notice validity cannot be reopened.

Review is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen a concluded finding on the statutory character of a notice. The High Court held that the earlier decision had already recorded that the notice dated 24.9.2004 was issued for proceedings under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not under Section 11A(1), so it was not barred on the ground advanced. As no apparent mistake was shown, the review application was rejected and the prior dismissal of the appeal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in relation to the nature of the notice and the maintainability of the proceedings.

Analysis: The review application sought reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the notice was under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was not maintainable in view of Section 2B or Section 11A of the Act. The earlier judgment had already recorded that the notice dated 24.9.2004 was issued for drawing proceedings under Section 33 of the Act and not under Section 11A(1), and therefore it was not prohibited. No mistake apparent from the record was shown to justify reopening the concluded decision.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable on the asserted ground and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The prior dismissal of the appeal remained undisturbed, and no review relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only where an error apparent on the face of the record is shown; a concluded finding on the statutory nature of the notice cannot be reopened in review merely by restating the same contention.

---