2013 (2) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake under Service Tax - Period of limitation - Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The final order was passed by this Tribunal on 19.02.2010 and the application for ROM was filed by the applicant on 23.03.2011 - Held that - The application for ROM has been filed beyond the prescribed in the statute book. Therefore, reject the application for Rectification of Mistake on the ground of limitation. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake application filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of rectification of mistake (ROM) application filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Initially, the application for ROM was dismissed by the Tribunal citing the absence of a provision for ROM under Service Tax. However, the applicant challenged this decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which set aside the order and directed the Tribunal to consider the ROM application on its merits as per Section 35C(2) of the Act.

Upon examining the provisions of Section 35C(2), the Tribunal noted that it has the authority to rectify any mistake apparent on record within six months from the date of the order, provided the mistake is brought to its notice by either party involved. In the present case, the final order was issued on 19.02.2010, while the ROM application was filed on 23.03.2011, clearly exceeding the stipulated six-month timeframe specified in the statute.

The applicant relied on certain case laws to support their argument, namely Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd., where ROM applications were filed within the prescribed period, leading to favorable decisions from the High Court and the apex court. However, the Tribunal emphasized that in the current case, the ROM application was indisputably lodged beyond the statutory timeframe, rendering the reliance on those cases irrelevant.

Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application on the grounds of limitation, adhering to the statutory requirement of filing such applications within the specified timeframe. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with procedural timelines in seeking rectification of mistakes under the relevant legal provisions, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficacy of the judicial process.