The scope of review is limited to correcting patent errors and does not extend to rehearing the dispute based on arguments that were not raised or urged for consideration before the Court.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the appellants. This is in essence the second journey of the appellants in respect of a Writ Petition (W. P. No. 522/90) filed before the High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 3. 3. 1994. The same was filed for quashing the proceedings 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, Central Excise by taking a view that the appellants were under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay excise duty on limestone chips, the High Court ought to have struck down the demand of duty based on Section 11a of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'act' ). This Court dealt with that aspect of the challenge in the following words:

"the next argument is that the High Court quashed the penalty imposed by the Collector, Central Excise, upon the appellants taking the view the appellants were under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay excise duty on limestone chips. It is submitted that the High Court should, therefore, have also struck down the demand of duty based on Section 11a. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court. We find that no such argument is recorded by the High Court or answered. If it was the contention of the appellants that the High Court had not answered an argument that had been advanced before it, they should have approached the High Court in review. As it is, we are of the view that only the arguments recorded by the High Court and answered require our consideration. The appeal is dismissed with costs. "

( 2 ) A review petition was filed before the High Court, inter alia, taking the stand that this Court had permitted filing of a review. The same was filed purportedly on the basis of the observations made by this Court to the effect that it was the contention of the appellants that the High Court had not answered 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. 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. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though in the original writ petition such a stand was not taken but in the amended writ petition such a stand was taken and, therefore the High Court was not justified in its view. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though there was no specific plea in this regard and some vague assertions had been made, the point was not urged for consideration before the High Court. Therefore, the review has been rightly dismissed considering the limited nature of the review.

( 3 ) WE find that after the amendment, para 10 (G