2008 (9) TMI 649 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Limitation period for filing ROM application, extension of benefit of law declared in SPBL case, unjust enrichment.

Limitation period for filing ROM application: The appellant argued that the ROM application, filed in 2008 for an order passed in 2003, should be considered timely due to the period the tax appeal was pending before the High Court. However, the Tribunal held that the application was filed after almost 5 years from the order date, and the provision of the Limitation Act regarding exclusion of time was not applicable as the High Court had jurisdiction over the matter. Referring to the decision in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, the Tribunal concluded that it had no power to condone the delay in filing the ROM application under Section 35C(ii), thus rejecting the application on the ground of limitation.

Extension of benefit of law declared in SPBL case: The appellant sought to extend the benefit of law declared in the SPBL case, citing a Mumbai High Court decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the Mumbai High Court judgment was not available at the time of the original order in 2003. It emphasized that the purpose of a ROM application is to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record at the time of passing the order. The Tribunal held that the order could not be recalled after a gap of 3 years based on subsequent favorable decisions, as it would undermine the finality of legal proceedings.

Unjust enrichment: The Tribunal's original order allowed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of unjust enrichment, based on a Supreme Court decision. The appellant did not challenge this finding in the ROM application. As the submissions focused only on the first ground, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the original order and rejected the ROM application.

*(Dictated and Pronounced in the Court)*