https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370572 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. A review cannot be used to reargue the merits, repeat earlier contentions, or function as a disguised appeal; the alleged error must be self-evident. Applying that standard, the earlier finding that the assessee controlled the manufacturing activity and supplied raw material for lock manufacture, bringing the activity within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, disclosed no patent error or omission of issues. The review application was therefore found to have no merit. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370572 Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. A review cannot be used to reargue the merits, repeat earlier contentions, or function as a disguised appeal; the alleged error must be self-evident. Applying that standard, the earlier finding that the assessee controlled the manufacturing activity and supplied raw material for lock manufacture, bringing the activity within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, disclosed no patent error or omission of issues. The review application was therefore found to have no merit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370572