Rectification Applications Must Be Timely Filed: CESTAT's Dismissals Upheld

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore rejected three ROM applications seeking rectification of Final Orders, citing Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. The High Court of Karnataka held in CCE, Bangalore v. Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. that rectification applications must be heard within six months of the Final Order. The Tribunal's orders passed after this period were deemed null by the High Court, despite the revenue's argument that the section is directory. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM applications in all three cases due to the lapsed time period post the Final Orders, aligning with the High Court's ruling.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act regarding the timeline for hearing rectification applications after the passing of Final Orders by the Tribunal.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed three ROM applications seeking rectification of Final Orders in different cases. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's ruling in CCE, Bangalore v. Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. emphasized that rectification applications must be heard within six months of the Final Order as per Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's order passed after this period was deemed a nullity by the High Court. The revenue argued that Section 35C(2) is directory, not mandatory. However, considering the High Court's stance that orders must be disposed of within six months, the Tribunal rejected the ROM applications in all three cases due to the lapsed time period post the Final Orders, in line with the High Court's judgment.

---