Late ROM Application Rejected: Time Limit Matters

The Tribunal rejected the Review of Order (ROM) application as it was filed after the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of the Final Order, in accordance with Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and concluded that applications filed beyond the statutory time limit are not maintainable, leading to the rejection of the ROM application in this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the Final Order
2. Interpretation of the time limit for filing a Review of Order (ROM) application

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of perceived mistakes in the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 18.08.2015. The learned Authorised Representative for Revenue objected to the application, citing that it was filed after the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of the order, as per Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Authorised Representative relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case. On the other hand, the Counsel for the applicant argued that the period of six months should be counted from the date of receipt of the impugned order, not from the date of the order.

2. Section 35C (2) of the Act allows the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the date of the order. In this case, the impugned order was dated 18.08.2015, making the deadline for filing any ROM application 17.02.2016. However, the ROM application was submitted on 04.03.2016, after the expiration of the six-month period. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case involving the rejection of a ROM application filed beyond the six-month limit. The High Court relied on a Supreme Court decision and concluded that applications filed after the prescribed time limit are liable for rejection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the ROM application in this case was not maintainable due to being filed after the prescribed time limit of six months. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application.

---