https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264769 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. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:58:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264769 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264769