CESTAT Bangalore Dismisses ROM Application for Delayed Case Disposal The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dismissed a ROM application as the case was not disposed of within six months from the date of the Final Order, ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT Bangalore Dismisses ROM Application for Delayed Case Disposal
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dismissed a ROM application as the case was not disposed of within six months from the date of the Final Order, as mandated by Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This decision was influenced by a ruling of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III v. Denso Kirloskar Indus. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 207 (Kar.).
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore rejected a ROM application due to both sides taking adjournments, leading to the matter not being disposed of within six months from the date of the Final Order, as required by Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on a judgment by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III v. Denso Kirloskar Indus. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 207 (Kar.).
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
