9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The present ROM application stand filed by the applicant, seeking rectification of mistake in Order No. A/325/WZB/AHD/2008, dt. 28-2-08. Inasmuch as the same is beyond the period of 60 days as provided in Section 35C(ii), the appellants have also filed COD application. 2. I have heard the Shri D.K. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri R.S. Srova, learned JDR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06 (204) E.L.T. 349 (Tri-Chennai) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 517 (Tri.-Chennai) as also in case of M/s. APS Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 83 (Tri-Del.). 4. The Hon ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works v. Registrar, CESTAT New Delhi - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 151 (Mad.), upheld the order of the Tribunal rejecting the ROM application on the point of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is shown. On going through the said judgment, I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in Para 19 has observed that - It is true that the period of limitation specified in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 129(B) of the Customs Act is required to be observed but the Tribunal failed to notice that it has inherent power of recalling its own order if sufficient cause is shown therefore. The princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case, inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to take note of the facts involved in the appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the ROM should have been entertained by the Tribunal. The said judgment cannot be held to be laying down the law that the Tribunal has powers to condone the delay in filing ROM application. 7. I also note that while disposing off the appellant s appeal vide its Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
