9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir Appeal was dismissed by this Tribunal, they had filed an appeal with the Hon ble Bombay High Court had the delay had occurred for that reason. The High Court had allowed them to withdraw their Appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal. There was, however, no delay in filing the ROM after the receipt of the High Court Order. 2. The learned JDR argued that although the ROM Application was filed more than 1 year and 3 months and 16 days after the Tribunal s order of 13-4-2006 (received on 22-1-2007), the delay could be condoned by the Tribunal as it had inherent power to do so. He referred to a Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust v. Union of India [2009 (233) E.L.T. 295 (S.C.)] and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 349 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 517 (Tribunal) Commissioner of C. Ex,. Thane-I v. Mohammed Hussain Abdul Sattar - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 416 (Tri.-Mumbai) APS Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 83 (Tri.-Delhi) 3.1 He also relied upon the Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works v. Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi [2006 (194) E.L.T. 151 (Mad.)] in which the High Court did not find any infirmity in the Order of the Tribunal rejecting the ROM application on the ground of limitation under Section 35C(2). 3.2 He further submitted that the Statute (Central Excise Act), having provided a period of limitation, it must be construed and applied str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at any time. He pointed out that in that case the matter had been remanded earlier by the Supreme Court to the Tribunal with specific directions, which had not been followed. Hence, the facts in this case were exceptional and could not be applied to the present case before the Tribunal. 3.4 Referring to the High Court order, he stated there were no directions given to the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the ROM. Hence, the Tribunal was bound to follow the Statute as specified in Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He pleaded that the Misc. Application be dismissed and consequently the ROM be also dismissed as time barred. 4. After hearing both the sides at length and carefully perusing the records, I find that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
