Gujarat High Court
Somabhai Shankarbhai Patel Thro B S ... vs Union Of India & on 5 April, 2013
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
SOMABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL THRO B S PATEL(POA)....Applicant(s)V/SUNION OF INDIA C/MCA/236/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RESTORATION) NO. 236 of 2013 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17314 of 2006 ================================================================ SOMABHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL THRO B S PATEL(POA)....Applicant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR HASIT DILIP DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 05/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) The present application is filed for review of the judgment dated 29.10.2012 whereby the captioned petition was dismissed. The said judgment was common CAV judgment passed in Special Civil Application No. 17314 of 2006 with Special Civil Application No. 17315 of 2006, with Special Civil Application No. 13797 of 2010 with Special Civil Application No. 13798 of 2010. All the above four Special Civil Applications were connected matters involving common facts, and therefore, were decided simultaneously.
At the outset, it may be noted that Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 86 of 2013, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 89 of 2013 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 86 of 2013 were filed by the petitioner herein in the other three Special Civil Applications respectively being Special Civil Application No. 17315 of 2006, Special Civil Application No. 13798 of 2010 and Special Civil Application No. 13797 of 2010. Those Miscellaneous Civil Applications were for reviewing the very common judgment, which is sought to be reviewed in the present application.
3. The said three review applications were heard and dismissed by oral order dated 22.02.2013. The said order reads as under, All these Miscellaneous Civil Applications are filed praying for review of the common C.A.V. Judgment dated 29.10.2012.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshit Dilip Dave for the applicants original petitioners in all these applications, and learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the respondent Department.
3. Pressing for review of the common judgment, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the conclusiveness of the order of the Settlement Commission contemplated under section 35M of the Central Excise Act, 1994, can apply in respect of the order of Settlement Commission dated 21.04.2006 only, and not to the subsequent orders. It was thereafter submitted that the decision in Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited vs. Union of India [(2008) 222 ELT 508 (Guj.)] applies to the facts of the present case also. Except these two arguments no other points were urged.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent opposed the prayer, and submitted that at the time of hearing of the petitions all the points were canvassed by both the sides.
We have considered the submissions. The scope of section 35M of the Act and the conclusiveness of the orders of the Settlement Commission contemplated in the said provision as well as the applicability thereof to the facts of the case and the orders under consideration have been discussed and dealt with in the common judgment upon such points which were raised at the time of hearing of the main petitions. In guise of review, the issues cannot be permitted to be re-agitated. So far as the decision in Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (supra) is concerned, the same is also considered in the common judgment. Learned advocate could not point any error apparent in the judgment so as to be reviewed. No ground being made out for review, all the three Miscellaneous Civil Applications are dismissed.
4. Since the review petitions filed in the aforesaid three out of four cognate petitions were dismissed as per order dated 22.02.2013 above, the very reasons would apply and govern the prayer for review in the present application. Nothing new was pointed out or submitted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the aforementioned order rejecting the earlier review applications, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application stands dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) sndevu Page 3 of 3