9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i P. Arul, Supdt.-AR ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Das: These applications are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the applicants fairly submits that earlier, they filed the applications for clarification of the Final Order No.40323-40326/13, dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Tribunal. They have also filed application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were inserted on 11.05.2001. He submits that the present ROM applications were filed against the impugned letter dated 14.08.2014 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tuticorin demanding the payment of interest. He submits that the limitation under Section 35C(2) would apply from the date of the said communication. Alternatively, the Tribunal is empowered to render the justice for imple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise or the party. There is no dispute that the present ROM applications were filed beyond six months as provided under Section 35C(2) of the Act. We find that there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing ROM applications under Section 35C(2). Hence, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel on this issue. 7. Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said letter is reproduced below:- Your reply is not convincing and has no legal backing. The interest liability is automatic and the interest amount is liable to paid by you even if the interest is not demanded in the show-cause notice. Hence, you are requested to pay the interest of Rs. 26,68,917/- immediately as intima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
