- (1.) Heard Mr. A.P Mathur, learned counsel for the review applicant as well as Mr. Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the respondent. This is a review application to review the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 passed by this Court, the learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that this Court had decided the appeal under misconception that the seized consignment was opened only when the nature of goods was taken up by the Custom Officers, whereas the consignment was, admittedly, already opened by the Trade Tax Officer on 21.06.2007.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant had invited attention of this Court towards para 32.1 of the paper book, but the Court failed to appreciate it. Learned counsel for the appellant had also raised argument in light of finding of the Commissioner that no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Keeping in view the value of seized goods in mind the review applicant has further stated that it is wrong to say that there was no paper for the consignment having transported in the garb of auto parts and machinery, whereas in the show cause notice old descriptions were recorded. In addition to the aforesaid plea, the learned counsel for the review applicant has raised some more arguments inviting the attention of this Court for reappreciation of evidence.
(3.) In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that there is no error on the face of order impugned, if the appellant point outs any illegality in the order he may file an appeal before the Higher Court. But there is no scope for this Court to review the order. In support of his submission he has cited a decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 8 SCC 715 . "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Govt. of A.P., 1964 AIR(SC) 1372 this Court opined: "What, however, we are not concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law in an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the fact of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 8. Again, in Meera Bhanjia Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, 1995 1 SCC 170 while quoting with approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma & Ors, 1979 4 SCC 389 this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9.Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 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 limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." He has also cited a decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others, 2013 8 SCC 337 . "24. This Court, on numerous occasions, had deliberated upon the very same issue, arriving at the conclusion that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC." We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the order under review. Upon perusal of the order, we have found that the issues raised, through the review application, have already been discussed by this Court. Thus we do not find error in the order under review.;