Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Iqubal Singh, S/o. Late I. Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
1. The instant application has been filed for review of an order dated 12.05.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C)/3165/2010. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition interfering with the claim made by the Central Excise Department from the petitioner for an amount of Rs.7,54,700/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred). It was also made clear in the order that if the excise duty leviable was already realized from the petitioner, the same was to be refunded by the respondent no. 1 (in the writ petition) within a period of one month. The respondent no. 1 is the Numaligarh Refinery Limited which is the applicant no. 1 in the present Review Petition.
2. I have heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. I have also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 (writ petitioner).
3. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the excise duty was already deposited to the Central Excise Department and therefore, the direction to the applicants to refund the amount is liable to be reviewed. He also submits that the applicants were deprived of an a
A review petition must comply with specific procedural requirements, and failure to do so renders it non-maintainable. A review is only permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as the discovery....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy available to assail the order was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Provisions of Section 11B that it governs refund of duty and interest from the relevant date and not penalty. Considering the provisions of Section 11B (supra), I find that the amount of penalty paid....
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
A review petition cannot be used to re-argue the merits of a case but is limited to correcting apparent mistakes on the record.
Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be restricted by statutory limitations; writ petitions can challenge Orders-in-Original even if appeals are time-barred.
Judicial and quasi-judicial orders become effective upon signing, independent of communication, reaffirming the obligations of authorities not to interfere post-decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
