CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH REVIEW APPLICATION NO.70 of 2025 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.657/2019 On this the 8th Day of January, 2026 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

1. Harnam Singh Rana S/o Late Sh., Brahma Nand, age 68 years, retired as Superintendent, office of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Loha Bazar Mandi Gobindgarh R/o 2093, Sector 69, Mohali-160062.

2. Gurpreet Singh Bagri S/o Sh. Baksha Singh, aged 68 years, Retired Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-1, R/o Kothi No. 895, Phase 7, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160061. 3. Tilak Raj Gulati S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Gulati, aged 69 years, Retired Superintendent, Customs & Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh-1, R/o 459, Sector 8, Panchkula-134109.

4. Lobhi Ram Verma S/o Late Sh. Brijoo Ram Verma, age 68 years, retired as Superintendent office of Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division, C.R. Building, Plot No. 19, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh R/o H.

No. 311B, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh-160047.

5. Fauja Ram S/o Late Sh. Hushuaki Ram, age 66 years, Retired Superintendent, Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh-1, R/o V.

Rupal, P.O. Dangri, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P 177033.

6. Lok Raj Sabharwal S/o Sh. B.M. Sabharwal, Ex- Superintendent, Central Excise Commissionerate II, Chandigarh R/o 1641/1, Sector 40-

B, Chandigarh-160036.

…. Review Applicants Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.-100011

2. Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Central Zone). Chandigarh Commissionerate, C.R. Building, Sector 17. Chandigarh-

160017 …. Respondents O R D E R (BY CIRCULATION)

PER: RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

1. Present review application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure RA-

1) passed by this Court in O.A. No.60/657/2019.

2. We have thoroughly examined the contents of this R.A. as well as perused order dated 06.10.2025 of this Court.

3. We find that the contents of this R.A. are not in accordance with the scope of review as has been enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC

1372:-

“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares 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.”

In Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR

1995 SC 455, the Apex Court has held as follows:-

“Error apparent on face of record” means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

Review Court re-appreciating entire evidence and reversing finding of Appellate Court – Review Court exceeded its jurisdiction –Order liable to be set aside.”

Further in the case of Parsion Devi & Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. JT 1997(8) SC 480, it has been held as follows:-

“An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be „reheard and corrected‟. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be „an appeal in disguise‟.

4. The scope of review is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter