AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants were heard and were decided on 19th March, 2013, granting certain relief to the appellant and certain demands against the appellants were confirmed. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court wherein the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court had also dismissed the appeal in limine. Thereafter, the appellant has filed the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908 for pointing out certain the error committed in the order passed by the Tribunal on 19 March, 2013 with an application for Condonation of Delay. To entertain the application under order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge 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." 6. On going through the above said provision, we find that the said provision can be attracted in case the appellant was not able to produce the documents which were beyond their control before this Tribunal while considering the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to be considered. It is further submitted that the application in question is only for the said limited purpose for remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the case of the appellant on the basis of the purchase orders which are in their possession and to decide the issue afresh. 9. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We find that in this case initially the order of this Tribunal dated 19.03.2013 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the appeal has been dismissed in limine in the said order was also carried before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein also the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine. In that circumstances, issue is arises whether the order of this Tribunal h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C." A similar issue came up before this Tribunal also in the case of Haryana Acrylic Mfg Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ltu Delhi in Application No. E/ROM/60057/2017 in Appeal No. E/2648/1999 vide Final Order No. 60057/2018 dated 29.01.2018. This Tribunal has observed as under:- "13. On going through the said guidelines, we find that in this case Tribunal order was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed their appeal but with the liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law and the said order has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court which has dismissed their petition in limine. As per guide lines by the Hon'bl....