CADCHEM LABORATORIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the appellant, Miscellaneous Application No. 60595 of 2013 was moved with the prayer to rectify certain mistakes contending to be apparent from Final Order No. A -57425/2013 -EX(DB), dated 30 -8 -2013 relating to Appeal No. E/23/2012 [2014 (312) E.L.T. 452 (Tri. -Del.)]. In the application, the appellant has brought out that due to delay in disposal of the appeal, there were certain mistakes crept in the order. It is further contended that the product in question was animal feed supplement, but the final order proceeded with re -examination of the product itself to hold otherwise. So also, it was contended that the interpretation whether animal feed would include animal feed supplement was not answered. By such other contentions stated in the application assessee says that these are rectifiable mistakes crept in final order for which recalling thereof would be justified.

(2.) REVENUE opposed the application on the ground that the appellant is seeking review of the Final Order by a short -cut process without seeking appeal remedy, if any, available against the order of the Tribunal if it is aggrieved by that. By this application, attempt of appellant is to stall the recovery proceedings against appellant.

(3.) LAW is well -settled that it is not permissible for anyone to reopen a proceeding by a modification application for review of the earlier order in disregard of the statutory bar of review. A three judges Bench of Apex Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh - : (1979) 1 SCC 321 following the precedent in Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, : (1966) 1 SCR 817 approving the earlier privy counsel decisions on Baijnath Ram Grenka v. Nand Kumar Singh -, 40 IA 54 : ILR 40 Cal 552 :, 15 Bom LR 500; Ananth Raju Shetty v. Appu Hegade -, AIR 1919 Mad. 244; Patel Chunibhai Dajibhai v. Narayan Rao Jambekar - : AIR 1965 SC 1457 held that review is a creature of statute but not an inherent power and cannot be entertained in the absence of a statutory provision in that regard. So also want of jurisdiction to review could not be cured by waiver and Court is not obliged to grant relief to a party disentitled to the same. It has further been reiterated in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimal Nath Narithania and Others - : (2010) 9 SCC 437 that unless the statute or rules so permit, a review application is not maintainable against judicial or quasi -judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the statute granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review cannot be made and order of review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction [vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar - : AIR 1965 SC 1457 and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh - : 1966 1 SCR 817]. It has also been held in CCE, Vadodara v. Steel Co. Gujarat Ltd. -, 2004 (163) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly granted.