R.k. Jha, Agm At Present Raj Kumar Sharma, Agm v. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner Additional

Judgment

2. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi - II, Near Ashiana Bagicha, Alwar Bye-Pass Bhiwadi, Alwar - Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 74/2022 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2861/2021 In M/s Balkrishna Industries Ltd., A-300-305 And E-306-313, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Dist - Alwar, Rajasthan - 301707 Through R.k. Jha, Agm At Present Raj Kumar Sharma, Agm. Versus ----Petitioner

2. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi-Ii Near Ashiana Bagicha, Alwar Bye-Pass Bhiwadi Alwar - Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 79/2022 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2863/2021 In Balkrishna Industries Ltd., A-300-305 And E-306-313, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Dist - Alwar, Rajasthan - 301707 Through R.k. Jha, Agm At Present Raj Kumar Sharma, Agm. Versus ----Petitioner

2. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi-II Near Ashiana Bagicha, Alwar Bye-Pass Bhiwadi Alwar - [2025:RJ-JP:6303-DB] (2 of 5) [WRW-73/2022] Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 81/2022 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11540/2020 In M/s Balakrishna Industries Ltd., A-300-305 And E-306-313, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Dist. - Alwar, Rajasthan- 301707 Versus ----Petitioner

2. Union Of India, Through Principal Commissioner & Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi-II Near Ashiana Bagicha, Alwar Bye-Pass Bhiwadi Alwar - Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Narendra Singhvi with Ms. Keshvi Katewa For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/02/2025 (Per Hon'ble Sudesh Bansal, J)

1. 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.

2. 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]

3. 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.

4. 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]

5. 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.

6. 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]

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find instant applications within scope of review, hence, same are hereby dismissed. No costs.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

10. A copy of this Order be placed in each connected file. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/1-4 (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ