JUDGMENT

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Heard Sri Deepak Seth Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Commissioner of Customs and Sri Yogesh Kumar S. Gorle Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2022 passed by this Court in Customs Appeal No. 7 of 2019.

3. The aforesaid customs appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, dismissing Customs Appeal No. C/71388-71389/2018, which were filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow against an order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, GST and Central Excise, Lucknow whereby the respondents were given an option to redeem the confiscated gold on payment of redemption fine. The appeal was admitted by an order dated 21.04.2019 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"A. Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad is correct in upholding the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without addressing itself in its final order the findings recorded by the Page Adjudicating Authority relating to absolute confiscation of smuggled gold and foreign currency?

B. Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad is correct in allowing to release the smuggled gold on redemption of fine and also by reducing the redemption fine?"

4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press substantial question No. B and he had confined his submissions to question No. A only.

5. The aforesaid question No. A has been answered in the judgment sought to be reviewed by stating that "nothing has been placed before this Court to establish that this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong or erroneous and that gold falls within the category of 'prohibited goods'. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the factual premise that Gold does not fall within the category of 'prohibited goods." In this factual backdrop, this Court concluded that the Adjudicating Authority had passed an order for confiscation of gold without taking into consideration the fact that gold is not a prohibited item and, therefore, it should be offered for redemption in terms of Section 125 of the CUSTOMS ACT (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') and thus the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has not committed any error in upholding the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the gold is not a prohibited item and, therefore, it should be offered for redemption in terms of Section 125 of the Act.

6. The aforesaid judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the judgment suffers from mistakes / errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as:-

(a) Neither Section 2 (33) of the Act has been considered nor the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC) has been considered;

(b) The case laws submitted by the appellant have not been considered; and

(c) The question of law no. (A) as formulated, has not been decided as no finding has been recorded as to whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner Appeals without addressing the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority relating to absolute confiscation of