2015 (8) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the lis from the stage of interlocutory application, namely, seeking waiver of pre-deposit. At the first instance, he suffered an order of adjudication for a sum of Rs. 12,47,693/- being differential duty and penalty of Rs. 16,26,556/-. Against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 20.12.2012 ordered pre-deposit of Rs. 16,26,556/-. Since the said order was not complied, the appeal was dismissed. In the meantime, there was another demand for a sum of Rs. 1,41,807/- being the differential duty and penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, which was ultimately set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal at the instance of the petitioner. We are not concerned with the second order of the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scellaneous application is disposed of." 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at that point of time was recorded in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 26.2.2015 and we set out as such for better clarity: "9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the assessee is suffering from financial hardship on account of long layoff and continued lockout. He further submitted that the company was under winding up and the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court." 4. It is relevant to point out that the reasons to dismiss the appeal has been recorded by this Court in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which we set out hereunder: "11. It is seen from the order of the Tribunal that e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order." (emphasis supplied) 8. The ground now pleaded by the petitioner is that s....