2015 (12) TMI 530 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Import of boric acid against valid DFIA - Application for rectification since previous order dismised as time barred - Held that - no merit in this application - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Clarification sought on the applicability of a judgment cited by the Revenue
2. Rectification of final order dated 19.12.2013 in Appeal No. C/641/10
3. Time-barred nature of the ROM application filed by the Revenue
4. Scope of prayer for clarification in the ROM application
5. Decision on the merit of the application

Analysis:

1. The applicant, M/s. Global Exim, filed a ROM application seeking clarification on the applicability of a judgment cited by the Revenue in ROM No. C/ROM/96766/14. The applicant requested the Appellate Tribunal to confirm that the cited judgment is not relevant as they had cleared imported Boric Acid against a valid DFIA. The Tribunal, after hearing the contentions, found no merit in the application and dismissed it.

2. The learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the Revenue had filed ROM application No. 96766/14 seeking rectification of the final order dated 19.12.2013 in Appeal No. C/641/10. The Revenue's application was based on the decision of the Single Judge of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application as time-barred, filed beyond the permissible period of six months under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The Revenue's ROM application was opposed by the learned AR, who contended that the nature of the prayer for clarification sought by the applicant was not within the scope of the application. The Tribunal considered this opposition and ultimately found no merit in the application, leading to its dismissal.

4. The Tribunal, in its order pronounced in court, highlighted that after considering the rival contentions and arguments presented by both parties, it did not find any merit in the application. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, indicating that the scope of the prayer for clarification was not substantiated in a manner that would warrant a favorable decision.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI in this case addressed the issues related to the clarification sought on a cited judgment, the time-barred nature of a ROM application, and the scope of prayers for clarification. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application was based on the lack of merit found after considering the arguments presented by both parties.