P.K. Jain, J. - (1.) BY order dated 13.9.1999, the above Civil Misc. Writ Petition was decided by me. The petitioner has come -up with the present application for review of the aforesaid order on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, the Court was led away by the submission of Sri S.P. Kesharvani, the counsel for respondents that the demand of duty was to the tune of Rs. 44 lacs whereas it was actually Rs. 19,16,247.00 and further amount of Rs. 9,16,247.00, the amount of penalty. The Tribunal while passing the impugned orders did not take into consideration that the seized goods of the petitioner were lying in custody of the department which could be taken as sufficient security and further plea of limitation specifically raised was not application and the writ petition (sic). On the question of limitation certain findings of the appellate Tribunal could not be looked into which were to the effect that "after going through the arguments of the department and the party I find that the Department has not tried to substantiate the allegations by way of any corroborative evidence out of the books of the production and clandestine removal. It is clear that the department has been over enthusiastic in booking a big case by way of pro -rata demand which is not sustainable." It is submitted that in view of these findings of the Tribunal the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. That this is a mistake apparent on the face of record.
(2.) COPY of the review application was served upon the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India on 20th September, 1999. No counter affidavit has been filed. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Kesharvani, learned Counsel for the respondent have been heard. It is not disputed that it is permissible for the High Court to review its order/judgment rendered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The position has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. The decisions in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1963 SC 1909 and State of Gujarat v. : AIR1976SC1695 may be referred in this regard.
(3.) IN Shivdeo Singh's case 5 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows: ...there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable 'errors committed by it.;