TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowing First Appeal From Order No. 686 of 2004, set-aside the judgment of the Customs, Excise Tax Tribunal, New Delhi dated 17.12.2003 and restored the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow dated 17.1.2002. (3) M/s R.P. Locks Company (review petitioner No.1 herein) is partnership firm having two partners, namely, M/s Anil Locks Ltd., Sri Anil Monga and Smt. Shakuntala Monga. The partnerhsip firm is engaged in the purchase and selling of various types of locks in the brand name "Harrison". (4) According to the review petitioners, review petitioner No. 1-M/s R.P. Locks Company, which is engaged in trading in locks under its own brand, namely, 'Harrison', purchases locks from many artisans in Aligarh, who use traditional methods of lock manufacturing without the use of power. Thereafter, M/s R.P. Locks Company affixes their brand name 'Harison' on these locks. M/s R.P. Locks Company also purchases duty paid locks from M/s Key Lock (India). (5) On receipt of the intelligence information with respect to not accounting production of locks by the M/s R.P. Locks Company in the brand name 'Harrison' which has been supplied to the M/s R.P. Locks Company by M/s Key Locks o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 1 and in totality will answer the definition of ''manufacturer'; iii) Whether findings recorded by Commissioner of Central Excise regarding functioning of Assessee in making "Harrison" brand locks, having not been reversed, still Tribunal could hold Assessee, not a manufacturer of "Harrison" brand locks, such a judgment of reversal without reversing findings of Commissioner is sustainable in law; iv) Whether judgment of CCE, Baroda Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala, 1996 (84) ELT 161 S.C. is applicable in the case in hand and has rightly been applied by Tribunal, though facts in the aforesaid judgment were somewhat different." (8) On 24.3.2017, after hearing the parties, a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the appeal, setaside the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.12.2003 and restored the order of the Commissioner dated 17.1.2002. (9) Hence the instant review application. (10) While seeking review of the judgment and order dated 27.4.2017, Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has submitted that in the judgment and order dated 27.4.2017, there are factual and legal errors apparent on the face ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, 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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects only to highlight the nature of review proceedings. (16) In the case of Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati and others; (2013) 8 SCC 320 which has been relied upon by the department, has summarized the grounds when the review will be maintainable or not:- "Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other suffici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not been considered in the light of the Khambatwala's case. (19) In this context, the stand of the firm/assessee was that it make the goods marketable and there is no change in the nature of goods. The stand of the department was that the assessee was not only involved in the activity of branding, polishing, affixation of MRP, packing etcetera but as a matter of fact the parts are made available by the firm to the suppliers. The person associated with M/s Key Locks had deposed before the authorities that they manufacture "Harrison" brand locks for R.P. Locks Company. The authorities have found that unbranded locks were supplied to the firm by the various industries which is established from the statement of various persons which were recorded by the authorities. These persons have stated that they have manufactured locks after receiving raw material or financial assistance from the Assessee as per sample or locks or specifications given by the Firm. A perusal of the judgment would show that the coordinate Bench has recorded detail findings and the crux of the issue, which in actual sense has covered all the three questions, referred to above. The findings so recorded lead to an....