UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIGNESWARAN SETHURAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in the appeal have filed this Review Petition on the ground that two contentions raised by them in the Writ Appeal were not considered by this Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by them. The said 2 contentions are as follows:

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel, relying on the judgments reported in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v/s. Union of India [ : (1985) 3 SCC 284 : 1985 (21) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] Commr. of C. Ex., New Delhi v/s. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. [ : 2012 (286) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and Young v/s. Cook [Vol. III Exchequer Division 101], asserted that the term 'gold' ought to have been interpreted to mean 'gold ornaments made of gold with 22 carat purity', since the term 'gold' is not defined under the Customs Act. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Review Petition contending that the judgment was rendered after considering all the contentions on merits; what is in effect sought is a rehearing on merits and there is absolutely no ground for a review of the judgment.

(3.) We have considered the rival contentions raised on either side. We find that the judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioners herein elaborately on merits, with reference to the contents of Ext. P3 order which was impugned as well as all the contentions raised in the pleadings and arguments. The judgments supra were cited by the learned counsel at the time of hearing of the Writ Appeal also and the same is evident from para 4 of the judgment. The Writ Appeal was dismissed after considering all the contentions including those regarding the 24 carat gold, the reasons stated in the order Ext. P3 by which the appellant ordered confiscation and levied penalty, after analysing all the relevant rules and orders, as evident from para 5 onwards of the judgment in the Writ Appeal. We find that the circumstances under which the judgments relied on by Sri John Varghese, were rendered were different and cannot be applied in the present case. Therefore, we are of the view that the attempt of the petitioner, by filing this Review Petition is in effect, to seek a rehearing itself of the appeal, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. If the petitioner feels that the judgment is not correct the remedy does not lie in seeking a review of the judgment.