M/S Balkrishna Industries LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Balkrishna Industries Ltd., filed review petitions seeking to review a judgment dated February 7, 2022, passed by the Rajasthan High Court. This judgment had dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions, which challenged the rejection of their claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on final products under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner argued that the Division Bench failed to consider their contention that excise duty had already been paid and that, even if not payable, the amount paid should be refunded under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The original writ petitions were dismissed on merits after the appellate and revisional authorities had affirmed the rejection of the rebate claim.
Held
The Court held that the review petitions were not maintainable. It found that the original writ petition was heard and dismissed on merits, with the Court affirming the rejection of the petitioner's rebate claim. The Court noted that the judgment dated February 7, 2022, was pronounced in open court in the presence of counsel for both sides, and the counsel who argued the writ petition did not file an affidavit supporting the review petition regarding non-consideration of contentions. The Court reiterated the well-established legal proposition that a review application cannot be used as an opportunity for re-argument or to raise new arguments on merits. Therefore, the Court concluded that the applications for review did not fall within the scope of review and dismissed them.
Key Issues
1. Whether the judgment dated February 7, 2022, suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record due to the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner's contentions regarding the payment of excise duty and the applicability of Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby warranting a review. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their arguments concerning the payment of excise duty and the refund provisions under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act were not dealt with in the impugned judgment. They argued that this omission constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record, justifying a review. They relied on the principle that if duty was paid but not payable, it should be refunded. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and Assistant Commissioner) in response to the review petitions. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the original writ petition was dismissed on merits after considering the departmental appeals and revisional orders that upheld the rejection of the rebate claim.
Sections Cited
Rule 18, Section 142(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 13/02/2025 (Per Hon'ble Sudesh Bansal, J)
In all the review petitions, final judgment dated 07.02.2022, sought to be reviewed, is common and the ground of review is also similar, hence with the consent of counsel for review petitioner, all review petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order.
For the sake of convenience, facts of DB Review Petition (Writ) No.73/2022 are being taken into consideration.
[2025:RJ-JP:6303-DB] (3 of 5) [WRW-73/2022]
Instant review petition has been filed by and on behalf of original writ petitioner, invoking provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, praying for review of the final judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No.2835/2021 and in other connected writ petitions, dismissing all the writ petitions and affirming the rejection of petitioner's claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short "Rules of 2002"), for rebate of excise duty paid on the final products.
It has been pleaded in the review petition and argued by the counsel for review petitioner that during course of arguments, put forth at the time of arguing the writ petition, contention was raised by and on behalf of petitioner that central excise duty on the final products had already been paid by the writ petitioner and thereafter, writ petitioner claimed rebate of excise duty under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002, but the Hon'ble Division Bench did not deal with such contention, while dismissing the writ petition, vide judgment dated 07.02.2022 and otherwise also, even if, it is treated that the central excise duty was not payable on the final products, in that event as well, the amount paid by the writ petitioner as excise duty, was liable to be refunded to petitioner, in the light of Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, hence, it has been argued that non-consideration of such contentions as much as failure to deal with these points by the Court in the judgment dated 07.02.2022, falls within the purview of mistake apparent on the face of record, therefore, the judgment dated 07.02.2022 requires review, to consider and deal with above contentions on merits.
[2025:RJ-JP:6303-DB] (4 of 5) [WRW-73/2022]
Having heard counsel for review petitioner and on perusal of the judgment dated 07.02.2022, it appears that the writ petition was heard and dismissed on merits, after taking into consideration that the rebate claim of petitioner made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rule 2002, although was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but on filing appeal thereagainst by the Department, the Commissioner appeals reversed the order and rejected the rebate claim; further the Revisional Authority had affirmed the order of Commissioner appeals. Thus it is explicit that this Court while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dated 07.02.2022, affirmed the rejection of rebate claim of petitioner on merits.
This is an undisputed fact that the judgment dated 07.02.2022 was dictated and pronounced in the open Court in presence of counsel for both sides. The writ petition on behalf of petitioner was argued by Advocate Ms. Disha Bhandari through VC and she has not filed her affidavit in support of review petition that any of the contentions raised by her were not considered by the Court while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dated 07.02.2022. 7. The legal proposition in respect of scope of review is well established that an application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity for the review petitioner to argue the matter on merits afresh and in the garb of a review application, re- arguments/ new arguments on merits of the matter cannot be allowed.
[2025:RJ-JP:6303-DB] (5 of 5) [WRW-73/2022]
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find instant applications within scope of review, hence, same are hereby dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
A copy of this Order be placed in each connected file. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Sachin Sharma/1-4
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.