TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Indore. During the pendency of the petition, orders were passed quantifying the liability of appellant No. 1 for imposition of penalty. These orders were challenged in the writ petition by amending the same. The High Court quashed the orders so far as they related to imposition of penalty. Questioning the correctness of the order an appeal was filed before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 16-4-2002. Basically, two stands were taken in the appeal. This Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court on the aspect of manufacture. The residual argument was that since the High Court had quashed the penalty imposed by the Collector, Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an argument that had been advanced before it and if that was the contention of the appellants they should have approached the High Court in review. The High Court noted that there was no ground taken in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants before the High Court conceded that no such ground was taken in the earlier S.L.P. 3.The High Court was of the view that an application for review was to be entertained only if such ground was raised in the writ petition before the Court and the Court had omitted to consider the same. From the records it was noted that no such ground was raised. The High Court was, therefore, of the view that no ground for review of the judgment existed and dismissed the same. 4.Learned coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned counsel frankly conceded that such a ground was not taken in the S.L.P. So far as the entitlement of the applicants for review is concerned, the petitioner can claim the same only if the petitioner had raised such a ground in the writ petition before the Court and Court had omitted to consider the same. From the record, it does not appear that any such ground was raised in the original writ petition." 8.The scope for review has been considered by this Court in several cases. In a recent case in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. - (2006 (4) SCC 78) it was held as follows : "13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 of the CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR 1964 SC 1372] held as follows : "There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by "error 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 states 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." 9.Even if it is accepted as contended that the plea was taken regarding limitation, the same ....