JUDGMENT P.K. Jain, J.
1. By order dated 13.9.1999, the above Civil Misc. Writ Petition was decided by me. The petitioner has come-up with the present application for review of the aforesaid order on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, the Court was led away by the submission of Sri S.P. Kesharvani, the counsel for respondents that the demand of duty was to the tune of Rs. 44 lacs whereas it was actually Rs. 19,16,247.00 and further amount of Rs. 9,16,247.00, the amount of penalty. The Tribunal while passing the impugned orders did not take into consideration that the seized goods of the petitioner were lying in custody of the department which could be taken as sufficient security and further plea of limitation specifically raised was not application and the writ petition (sic). On the question of limitation certain findings of the appellate Tribunal could not be looked into which were to the effect that "after going through the arguments of the department and the party I find that the Department has not tried to substantiate the allegations by way of any corroborative evidence out of the books of the production and clandestine removal. It is clear that the department has been over enthusiastic in booking a big case by way of pro-rata demand which is not sustainable." It is submitted that in view of these findings of the Tribunal the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. That this is a mistake apparent on the face of record.
2. Copy of the review application was served upon the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India on 20th September, 1999. No counter affidavit has been filed. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Kesharvani, learned Counsel for the respondent have been heard.
3. It is not disputed that it is permissible for the High Court to review its order/judgment rendered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The position has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. The decisions in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. A.I.R. 1963 SC 1909 and State of Gujarat v. Sardarbegum and Ors. may be referred in this regard.
4. In Shivdeo Singh's case 5 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:
...there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable 'errors committed by it.
5. In State of Gujarat v. Sardar Begum and Ors. (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that:
a patent error which was perhaps due to inadvertence could and should have been suo motu corrected by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the ordinary period of limitation, if any prescribed for a review application.
6. As to the limitation of the powers of review a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.T. Sharma v. V.A.P. Sharma held that:
the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court.
7. Thus in view of the ratio laid down in relation to the exercise of the power, High Court to review its earlier Judgment, order or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are limited to cases where there have been grave and palpable errors committed or a patent error was committed due to inadvertence or discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the persons seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power, however, cannot be exercised on the ground that a decision was erroneous on merit when the submission of the parties counsel have been considered and decision has been arrived at.
8. In the instant case it is true that there were observations in the order of the Tribunal as re-produced above but they related to part of the demand raised by the adjudicating authority. The order was passed by this Court on consideration of entirety of the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that ultimately the contesting questions of fact shall be gone into by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. There is, however, insignificant error with regard to the amount demanded through adjudication proceedings or by way of penalty. The amount comes to around Rs. 39 lacs and odd instead of Rs. 44 lacs as observed in the order of the Court. There is thus not much scope for reviewing the order passed earlier.
9. Sri A.P. Mathur then submits that the order be modified to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to file security of the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances and without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case I feel that this request of Sri Mathur deserves consideration. The Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit a total sum of Rs. 11 lacs in cash by the impugned orders dated 21.12.1998. The interest of the department/revenue shall be safeguarded if the petitioner is permitted to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash and the balance by way of adequate security to the satisfaction of the adjudicating authority. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, accordingly modified. The deposit shall be made and the security shall be furnished by the petitioner in accordance with aforesaid modification within six weeks from 1.11.1999. On making such deposit and furnishing such security the condition of pre-deposit of the remainder shall stand waived and the recovery thereof shall stand stayed.
10. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.