TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax to grant an opportunity to the noticee to cross examine the witnesses and thereafter to pass a final order. Against the aforesaid order, the present Review Petition has been filed. 04. It has been stated that in another case i.e. W.P.No.1701/2016 decided on 04.03.2016 an order has been passed and the contention of the learned counsel is that in W.P.No.1701/2016 (M/s Arshiya Ayurved Sansthan Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Indore) this Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner therein to cross examine the witnesses. 05. This Court has carefully gone through the order dated 04.03.2016. The aforesaid case was dismissed in limine at the motion state itself. In the aforesaid case the noticee has made prayer for cross examination of six officers of the department and the Court has observed that the noticee wanted to linger the matter and to delay the proceedings and dismissed the petition at the stage of motion hearing. 06. In these matters, Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Export Corporation, Bombay Vs. Collector of Customs, Bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ror apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. ... where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out." 20. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the background facts of the present case, the position is clear that the High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for review. First, the crucial question which according to the High Court was necessary to be adjudicated was the question whether Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 (sic 1 of 1986) was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and was irrelevant so far as Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19-8-1982 is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f ) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f ). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f ) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or developm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.' 22. Whereas the appellant-defendant filed a review application confined to the question that he was entitled to the restitution of the property and mesne profit in respect whereof the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not pass any specific order, the application for review filed by the respondent was on the merit of the judgment. The relevant grounds of review which have been placed before us relate to: (i) Unconditional withdrawal of some amount by one of the creditors of the defendant as also the defendant himself. (ii) The defendant's application before the executing court that he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed on receipt of amount in cash and the said admission allegedly was not brought to the notice of the court. (iii) While holding that there was no agreement to reduce th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had never been raised before the appellate court, keeping in view the finding of fact arrived at that there had in fact been no novation of contract, such a course of action was not open. In any view of the matter, the same would amount to reappreciation of evidence which was beyond the review jurisdiction of the High Court. 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject-exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any suff....