TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erim order was passed directing the respondent authorities to release the goods forthwith, neither submissions made nor pleadings contained in the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicants/original respondents were taken into consideration. He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Court is a non-speaking order and it gives rise to the present review applications. In support of his submissions, Mr. Oza has relied on the decisions of the apex court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh - (2004) 1 SCC 547 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 137 and in the case of State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568. The Courts have taken the view in these cases that right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. Reasons are at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. 4. Mr. Oza further pointed out that despite the fact that reliance was placed by the applicants/original respondents on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, 2004 (164) E.L.T. 141 (S.C.), the same has not been considered. Mr. Oza has submitted that the apex court in this case has held that when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imes with condition for automatic renewal thereof, till the final disposal of the adjudication proceedings and recovery of dues, if any. 6. Mr. Paresh M. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the opponent/original petitioner in all the three review applications, submitted that the present applications moved by the applicants/original respondents are beyond the scope of review. He has further submitted that there is no apparent error in the order passed by this Court on 16-9-2010 and hence, it does not call for any review. If the applicants have any grievance against the said order, the remedy lies else where. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Parison Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Miss Sonal P. Shah and Others, AIR 1982 GUJ. 58. He has further submitted that all decisions cited and contentions raised therein were to be viewed considering the facts of the present case. He has submitted that this is the third round of litigation. Earlier two petitions were filed, the first petition was dismissed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable on record. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court has recorded prima facie opinion instead of giving the reasons in the order and hence, the said order is not required to be reviewed or recalled at the behest of the applicants/original respondents. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the submissions made in light of the authorities cited before the Court and also the provisions of law and the documents produced, this Court is of the view that the review applications preferred by the applicants/original respondents are beyond the scope of review as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. As a matter of fact, what had weighed with the Court at the time when the said order was passed, was the fact that the department itself had appointed the surveyor and on the basis of the surveyor's report, the opponent/petitioner was directed to make the payment of duties. Still, the matter is not finally adjudicated upon and it was at the show cause notice stage and hence, the Court has directed the opponent/petitioner to furnish bond for the disputed amount of duty so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within a period of three weeks. The authorities have, thereafter, filed two Miscellaneous Civil Applications seeking extension of time. Instead of assessing the goods, seizure order was passed which was challenged in the present petitions. No sooner the notice was issued by this Court on 24-4-2010 and served on 26-4-2010, show cause notice was issued on 3-5-2010 and served on the petitioners on 4-5-2010. The petitioners, thereafter, sought amendment challenging the show cause notice. After considering the show cause notice and draft amendment being granted, the impugned order was passed on 16-9-2010. 12. Though the surveyor's report is referred to and relied on in the show cause notice, an allegation of undervaluation of the goods assessed and valued by the surveyor, was levelled in the show cause notice. Though the surveyor has examined tyres and opined that they are old and used and discarded ones, the show cause notice was issued on the basis that they are under assessed and are capable of being used for fast moving vehicles and are new and usable tyres. There was no evidence establishing the allegation of mis-declaration of description and/or condition of tyres. 13.....