Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, VIP Industries Ltd., filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an earlier order that dismissed its application for condonation of delay in filing a Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The original appeal was against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was four days. A Division Bench of the High Court, relying on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II v. Shruti Colorants Ltd., had held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 35G and dismissed the condonation application. Subsequently, a Full Bench of the same High Court, in Commissioner of Customs v. Sujog Fine Chemicals India Ltd., held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 29(2), applies to appeals under Section 35G, thus overruling the earlier view. In light of this Full Bench decision, the petitioner sought review of the earlier order dismissing its condonation application. The main legal issue before the court was whether the High Court has the power to review its own decision in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court analyzed Section 35L of the Act, which expressly bars the application of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to any order passed under the Act. The court held that since the Act is a complete code and excludes the CPC provisions on review, the High Court has no inherent or statutory power to review its own judgment in such appeals. The court distinguished between procedural review (to correct clerical errors) and substantive review, finding that the petitioner sought a substantive review on merits, which is not permissible. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35G and Section 35L - Power to Review - The High Court examined whether it has the power to review its own judgment in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court held that since Section 35L of the Act bars the application of Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC to orders passed under the Act, the High Court has no power to review its own decision in such appeals. The review petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1, 8-10) B) Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 and Section 29(2) - Applicability to Central Excise Appeals - The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court had earlier held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayal Abbubacker and other precedents. However, the present review petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of review jurisdiction. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court has power to review its own decision rendered in an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, dehors the provisions of that Act.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court has no power to review its own decision in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in view of Section 35L which bars the application of Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Central Excise Act
- 1944
- Section 35G
- Section 35L
- power to review
- condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Section 29(2)
- inherent power
- procedural review
