2016 (6) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation - Maintainability of ROM application - filed after the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of the order - Held that - the impugned order is dated 18.08.2015 and hence the time limit for filing any ROM application expired on 17.02.2016. However, the ROM application has been filed on 04.03.2016, after six months from the date of impugned order. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Pune -III vs. GE Medical Systems 2009 (11) TMI 676 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has examined exactly the same issue and has considered whether the CESTAT is correct in rejecting the ROM application filed beyond the period of six months, especially in view of the fact that the ROM application was filed within six months from the date of receipt of the final order by relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India (P) Limited 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT and held that the ROM application filed after the prescribed time limit of six months is liable for rejection. Therefore, the subject ROM application is not maintainable. - ROM application rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the Final Order
2. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a Review of Order (ROM) application

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of perceived mistakes in the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 18.08.2015. The learned Authorised Representative for Revenue objected to the application, citing that it was filed after the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of the order, as per Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Authorised Representative relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case. On the other hand, the Counsel for the applicant argued that the period of six months should be counted from the date of receipt of the impugned order, not from the date of the order.

2. Section 35C (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. In this case, the impugned order was dated 18.08.2015, making the deadline for filing any ROM application 17.02.2016. However, the ROM application was submitted on 04.03.2016, after the expiration of the six-month period. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case involving the rejection of a ROM application filed beyond the six-month limit. The High Court relied on a Supreme Court decision and concluded that applications filed after the prescribed time limit are liable for rejection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the ROM application in this case was not maintainable due to being filed after the prescribed time limit of six months. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application.