9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2151 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for rectification of the alleged mistake under Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The limitation for filing the application for rectification of mistake is six months from the date of order as stipulated in Section 35 C (2) of the Act. It is seen that the date of final order of the Tribunal is 30 October 2017 and the date of filing of the appeal before Rajasthan High Court is 15 April 2018. Thus, about five and half months were consumed by the appellant before filing the appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. After the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the Appeal on 3 October 2018, the application for rectification of the mistake was actually filed on 8 January 2019 before this Tribunal, i.e. after about three months and five days. As such, even if the time consumed by the applicant before the Rajasthan High Court is excluded the application for rectification of the mistake the order of the Tribunal has been filed beyond six months. The Tribunal does not have the power to condone any delay beyond six months as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in NATIONAL ENGG. INDS. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR 2001 (11) TMI 104 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI . It needs to be stated that against this decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the Department filed Civil Appeal No. 183-186/2013 which was dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits in NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER 2003 (1) TMI 721 - SC ORDER . The application, that was filed beyond six months from the date of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly rejected. The other two applications, therefore, stand rejected.
Issues:
- Application for rectification of mistake under Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944. - Application for condoning the delay in filing the rectification application. Analysis: 1. The Department filed an application for rectification of a mistake under Section 35 C (2) of the Act, seeking to amend the order passed by the Tribunal. The application was related to an appeal filed by a company, which was allowed by the Tribunal, setting aside the impugned order. 2. Section 35 C (2) of the Act allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the date of the order. The provision also mandates giving notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party in case the amendment affects their liability. 3. The Department also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the rectification application, as it was not submitted within the prescribed six-month period from the date of the Tribunal's order. 4. The application for rectification mentioned that the Department had appealed to the High Court, which was disposed of with liberty to file a rectification application before the Tribunal, along with a request for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 5. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, dealing with the exclusion of time during diligent prosecution of another civil proceeding, was invoked by the Department to justify the delay. The timeline of events, approvals, and filing of appeals before the High Court were detailed in the application. 6. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was considered applicable only for the period from the filing of the appeal before the High Court until its disposal, limiting the scope of exclusion of time for the delay justification. 7. Despite the Department's arguments regarding the exclusion of time due to High Court proceedings, the Tribunal noted that the rectification application was filed beyond six months from the date of the original order, even after excluding the time spent in High Court proceedings. 8. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized its lack of power to condone delays exceeding the six-month limit, citing a decision by a Larger Bench in a previous case and a subsequent dismissal of a Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court on similar grounds. 9. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application filed beyond the statutory six-month limit, along with the application for condonation of delay, as it was deemed untimely and outside the Tribunal's authority to condone such delays. 10. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, affirming the rejection of the applications due to the delay in filing the rectification application beyond the statutory timeframe.
|
