TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of duty was to the tune of Rs. 44 lacs whereas it was actually Rs. 19,16,247.00 and further amount of Rs. 9,16,247.00, the amount of penalty. The Tribunal while passing the impugned orders did not take into consideration that the seized goods of the petitioner were lying in custody of the department which could be taken as sufficient security and further plea of limitation specifically raised was not considered. This Hon'ble Court was also of the impression that undue hardship was not pleaded in the stay-cum-waiver application and the writ petition. On the question of limitation certain findings of the appellate Tribunal could not be looked into which were to the effect that "after going through the arguments of the department and the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it." In State of Gujrat v. Sardar Begum and others (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that; "a patent error which was perhaps due to inadvertence could and should have been suo motu corrected by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the ordinary period of limitation, if any prescribed for a review application." 5. As to the limitation of the powers of review a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.T. Sharma v. V.A.P. Sharma, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1047 held that : "the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating authority. The order was passed by this Court on consideration of entirety of the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that ultimately the contesting questions of fact shall be gone into by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. There is, however, insignificant error with regard to the amount demanded through adjudication proceedings or by way of penalty. The amount comes to around Rs. 39 lacs and odd instead of Rs. 44 lacs as observed in the order of the Court. There is thus not much scope for reviewing the order passed earlier. 8. Shri A.P. Mathur then submits that the order be modified to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to file security of the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal. ....