RAJASTHAN TEXTILE MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks review of the judgment dated 1 -10 -2012 [ : 2013 (298) E.L.T. 183 (Raj.)] of this court by which three writ petitions filed by petitioner were dismissed. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that though the Writ Petition No. 4470/2012 was based on the same facts but was substantially different from other two writ petitions. In Writ Petition No. 4470/2012, an alternative submission was made that in case rebate is not held allowable simultaneously under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which was an issue in other two writ petitions, then the petitioner should atleast be allowed re -credit of the duty paid on the excisable finished goods exported by utilizing credit in the Cenvat account on the underlying settled legal position that the goods exported should not suffer any incidence of excise duty and that the Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, itself permits the applicant -petitioner to export goods without payment of duty. It is argued that this aspect of the matter in the context of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2002 has not been considered and decided by the Division Bench. It is further argued that non -grant of credit benefit in the Cenvat account would be discriminatory qua the petitioner as merely because he has not opted for Rule 19 straightaway at the first instance which permits export of excisable goods without payment of duty and opted for Rule 18 under bona fide belief for claiming rebate by first paying the duty on the excisable goods used as inputs in the manufacture of goods exported and also the duty on the excisable goods exported, it cannot be made to suffer excise duty which is otherwise not leviable.

(2.) THIS review petition is seeking to raise the issue which was already raised, considered and decided by this court vide impugned order dated 1 -10 -2012. It is another matter that the issues may not have been decided to the satisfaction of the petitioner in the manner he wanted them to be decided. But the Division Bench, while deciding the writ petitions, has taken note of Rule 18 as well as Rule 19 and has made detailed discussion, which is evident from the observations by the court that "...the benefit available under Rule 19 is only on the finished goods, not on raw material. Thus, it is not in dispute that the procedures of Rules 18 and 19 are totally different, stages are also different." and further that the "intendment of Rule 19 is also not to provide rebate on both; it provides for rebate on manufactured goods." On the last page of the judgment also while taking note of the Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules of 2002, the Division Bench observed that "exemption of duty or rebate is not available on both i.e. inputs as well as finished goods; same is available only on one and such intendment has to be given full effect to." On that note, the Division Bench rejected the specific argument raised by the learned counsel in the contest of Rule 19 in Writ Petition No. 4470/2012. The Division Bench also held that "...benefit of Rule 19 could not have been pressed at the stage of passing of order, as essential requirement of Rule 19 is that a person from the department is posted at the factory premises and under his supervision, goods are to be exported, which is not done in the instant case."

(3.) IN Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others [ : (1997) 8 SCC 715], it was held by the Supreme Court that an error, which is not self -evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. In exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between the erroneous decision and error apparent on the face of record, while the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected only by exercise of review jurisdiction.