Dismissal of review petitions upholding duty demands between units, emphasizing legal principles and factual analysis.

The High Court dismissed the review petitions seeking to challenge a judgment regarding duty demands between two units. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the correct application of legal principles from a Supreme Court judgment and the consideration of specific facts and circumstances in determining the relationship between the units. The Court found no error on the face of the record or sufficient reason for review, highlighting the importance of evaluating each case individually and supporting the Tribunal's conclusions based on the evidence presented.

---

---

Issues:
Review of judgment based on error apparent on the face of the record and reliance on legal principles from previous cases.

Analysis:
In this case, the review petitioners sought a review of the judgment and order dated 28-1-2009 delivered by the Bombay High Court. The review was requested on the grounds of an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners argued that a previous order by the Division Bench had directed the Tribunal to consider specific judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, which the Tribunal allegedly did not properly appreciate. The Supreme Court's judgment in the mentioned case emphasized the importance of correctly identifying the liable party for duty demands. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal should have followed a similar course and remanded the matter instead of confirming the duty demand against both units. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that the Tribunal had correctly applied the legal principle from the Supreme Court's judgment and justified its conclusion based on the evidence on record. The High Court highlighted that the necessity of remand in each case depends on the specific facts and circumstances.

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the Tribunal had relied on certain circumstances to conclude that one unit was a dummy unit of another, citing previous cases where similar circumstances were not considered relevant. The High Court, however, explained that the relevance of circumstances varies from case to case, and the cumulative effect of all circumstances is crucial in determining the relationship between units. The court emphasized that no strict rules could be established and rejected the argument that reliance on these circumstances was a ground for review.

Lastly, the petitioners contested the Tribunal's finding of 2% profit sharing between the units, claiming a lack of evidence to support this conclusion. However, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that apart from the profit-sharing aspect, several other circumstances supported the conclusion that one unit was a dummy of another. The court reiterated the various shared aspects between the units, such as premises, staff, and marketing agent, indicating a close connection between them.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petitions, finding no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason for review. The court emphasized the importance of considering the specific facts of each case and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles applied.

---