2020 (12) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w the order dated 29.02.2016, made in W.P.No.2968 of 2016. 2. By order dated 29.02.2016, this Court, after considering the case of both the parties, following the Judgment made in W.A.No.582 of 2011, dated 01.04.2011, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty for the value of the gold jewellery and on such deposit being made, the gold jewellery in question shall be released forthwith by the 2nd respondent. Further, this Court also made it clear that the order passed in the Writ Petition will not come in the way of the respondents therein to entertain the show cause notice and decide the matter. Further, this Court also directed the Writ Petitioner to co-operate in the adjudication proceedings. 3. The respondents in the Writ P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicants submitted that the 2nd Applicant had worked on 27.02.2016 and had passed the order on the same day. 6. Since this Court had considered all the contentions raised by the Review Applicants in the Writ Petition while disposing of the same on 29.02.2016, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the Review Application. That apart, the Review Applicants cannot re-argue the Writ Petition in the guise of Review Application. The Review Applicants are not in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of the record to entertain the Review Application. Since there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the Review Application, the Review Application i....