TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Stay Order, Rejects ROM Application Scope Challenge</h1> The Tribunal held that Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications are maintainable in both final and interim orders, rejecting the contention that ROM is ... Rectification of mistake - Interim order - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Maintainability of rectification of mistake applications for allowing total waiver of the condition of pre-deposit.2. Grounds for seeking modification of the stay order.3. Consideration of financial constraints and previous orders in passing the stay order.4. Relevance of observations made in another appeal regarding evidence.Issue 1: Maintainability of Rectification of Mistake ApplicationsThe judgment addresses the preliminary objection raised by the ld. SDR regarding the maintainability of the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications. The SDR contended that ROM application is only maintainable in the final order, not in the interim order, citing Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that every Court/Tribunal has inherent power to rectify its own mistake, whether in the final or interim order. Legal precedents were cited to support this principle. The Tribunal held that the distinction drawn by the SDR was not supported by the law.Issue 2: Grounds for Seeking Modification of Stay OrderThe appellants sought modification of the stay order on two main grounds. Firstly, they argued that the Bench's observation regarding the stay of the order declaring the companies as sick units was inaccurate. They claimed that only the winding-up order of one company had been stayed by the High Court, not the declaration as a sick unit. Secondly, they contended that certain evidence should not have been considered as substantive evidence as the witness did not submit to cross-examination. However, the Tribunal found these grounds insufficient to warrant modification of the stay order.Issue 3: Consideration of Financial Constraints and Previous OrdersThe Tribunal emphasized that all relevant facts, circumstances, and materials were considered before passing the impugned stay order. It noted the financial constraints pleaded by the companies and took into account orders from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the appellate authority. Even if there was a discrepancy in the High Court's orders regarding the companies, the Tribunal found it did not justify recalling or modifying the stay order. The financial situations of the companies were duly considered before directing the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.Issue 4: Relevance of Observations in Another AppealThe appellants relied on observations made in another appeal regarding the evidential value of certain testimony. However, the Tribunal held that observations in a separate appeal could not be the basis for modifying the stay order in the present cases. The evidential value of the testimony had already been considered when directing the appellants to make the pre-deposit. The Tribunal concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to modify or recall the stay order, dismissing all ROMs filed by the appellants and directing them to make the pre-deposit within a specified period.In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues raised by the appellants regarding the modification of the stay order and the maintainability of the ROM applications. The Tribunal considered legal principles, factual circumstances, financial constraints, and previous orders before dismissing the appeals and upholding the requirement for pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
