ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is an application filed by the Revenue seeking for review of the Tribunal’s Final Order No. 906/2006 dated 10.05.2006 by which the appeal of the assessee was allowed in the light of the Apex Court’s judgment rendered in CCE, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 5(SC). Revenue approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka, by their judgment dated 15.03.2007, has rejected the appeal, however, granting liberty to the department to file a review petition before the Tribunal, if available to them, and in accordance with law.
2. The learned JDR submits that the matter may be re-heard, as the issue involved in the L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. case has again been challenged by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. and the appeal has been admitted by the Supreme Court.
3. The learned Counsel submits that there is no provision in the Finance Act providing for review of the Tribunal’s order. The only course available for the Revenue was to file an application for rectification of mistake which has not been done and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal has become final.
4. The learned JDR submits that he will request the Commissioner to examine the matter again and file an appeal before the Apex Court, as similar issues are pending.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions. The appeal against the Final Order of the Tribunal has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. However, as we see from the High Court’s judgment, Shri Shashikanth, the learned Counsel for Revenue, made a submission that Revenue would file an appropriate review petition before the Tribunal. We are of the view that there is no provision under Section 86 of the Finance Act for review of the Tribunal’s order. Even the High Court has not given any direction for the Tribunal to review the judgment but has only given an opportunity to the department to file a review petition before the Tribunal, if available to them, and in accordance with law. As there is no provision for review, this application does not stand scrutiny and, therefore, the same is rejected. Revenue is at liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Apex court with an application for condonation of delay. Misc. application rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)