9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 820 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay in filing Rectification of mistake application - Held that - the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake filed by the Revenue has been filed before the Tribunal on 27.11.2017 - The relevant Final Order was issued by the Tribunal on 29.03.2017. The six months period allowed under Section 35C (2) of the Act requires the ROM, if any, to be filed on or before 28.09.2017 - Since the ROM application filed by the Revenue has been received on 27.11.2017, it is beyond the period of six months. In the absence of any provision in Section 35C (2) to condone any delay in filing the ROM application beyond six months, the delay cannot be condoned. ROM application dismissed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the date of filing the refund application. Timeliness of the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application and the possibility of condonation of delay. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake filed by the Revenue concerning the Final Order dated 22.03.2017. The Revenue contended that the date of filing the refund application mentioned in the order was incorrect, stating that the actual date was 27.12.2005, not 21.03.2001 as indicated. The appellant objected, citing that the ROM application was not filed within the required six-month period under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, which does not allow for condonation of delay beyond this period. Upon review, it was observed that the ROM application was submitted to the Tribunal on 27.11.2017, exceeding the six-month deadline set by Section 35C (2). The Department sought condonation of a 55-day delay, but as there is no provision in the Act to extend the time limit for filing the ROM application beyond six months, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the ROM application by the Revenue was dismissed due to being filed beyond the statutory time limit. In conclusion, both the ROM and Condonation of Delay (COD) applications were dismissed as the ROM application was not filed within the stipulated six-month period, and no provision existed for extending this deadline under Section 35C (2) of the Act.
|
