2009 (3) TMI 696 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

In the appellate judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the court considered a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application filed by the appellant beyond the 60-day period specified by Section 35C(ii). The tribunal referred to various precedents, including a decision by the Larger Bench in M/s. National Engg. Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, which held that the delay in filing under Section 35C(ii) cannot be condoned. The Hon'ble Madras High Court and other cases were cited to support the position that the limitation period for ROM applications must be strictly adhered to. The advocate for the appellant cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust v. UOI, arguing that the tribunal has inherent powers to recall its order if sufficient cause is shown. However, the tribunal ultimately rejected the ROM application as time-barred, noting that the delay should not be condoned in this case. The decision was based on a thorough consideration of the facts and evidence presented during the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the ROM application. The court emphasized that the limitation period specified under the Act must be taken into account, even though there may be exceptional circumstances where the tribunal could entertain a ROM application. The final outcome was the rejection of the application due to being time-barred.