TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Applications for Clarification of Penalty Order Dismissed as Time-Barred</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus INTEGRA AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI Versus INTEGRA AUTOMATION PVT. LTD. - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 602 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Clarification/modification of Final Order regarding penalty under Section 11AC.2. Time-barred nature of the applications for rectification of mistake (ROM).Analysis:Issue 1: Clarification/modification of Final Order regarding penalty under Section 11ACThe judgment pertains to applications filed by the department seeking clarification/modification of a Final Order dated 25-11-2003 passed by the Bench. The Final Order remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication on all issues except the penalty under Section 11AC. The Final Order had set aside the penalty under Section 11AC citing that the period in question was before the promulgation of Section 11AC. The applications aimed at rectifying this decision by pointing out that the disputed period fell partially within the timeframe of Section 11AC. The Bench considered this argument but ultimately dismissed the applications as time-barred due to the change in the period of limitation for such applications.Issue 2: Time-barred nature of the applications for rectification of mistake (ROM)The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the time-barred nature of the applications. Referring to an earlier decision, it was argued that the applications, filed on 24-3-2005, were beyond the six-month limitation period set after an amendment on 11-5-2002. The department's attempt to salvage the applications by highlighting the remand nature of the Final Order was rejected by the Bench. The Bench upheld the objection, emphasizing that the Final Order, particularly concerning the penalty issue, was final and not subject to the extended limitation period. As the applications were filed well beyond the prescribed time limit, they were dismissed as time-barred.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of seeking clarification/modification of a Final Order regarding penalty under Section 11AC and the time-barred nature of applications for rectification of mistake. The Bench dismissed the applications as time-barred due to the change in the limitation period and the finality of the decision on the penalty issue in the original order.
TaxTMI 