Appeal allowed, order quashed, ROM Application reinstated for timely consideration. Time limit calculation clarified.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and restored the Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) Application for further consideration on its merits. The Court held that the time limit for filing ROM Applications should be calculated from the date of receipt of the order, excluding the time taken to obtain a copy of the order. The Court emphasized the purpose of the ROM Application as rectifying mistakes and the need to avoid rendering parties remedyless due to a strict interpretation of the time limit provision.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Interpretation of Section 129B(2) regarding the time limit for rectification of mistakes by the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The issue revolved around the timing of filing a Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) Application under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's ROM Application on the grounds of being filed beyond the six-month time limit prescribed by Section 129B(2). The Appellant filed the ROM Application on 6.7.2015 after receiving the order on 9.1.2015. The rejection led to the dismissal of the Appeal on its merits.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the literal interpretation of the time limit provision in Section 129B(2). However, the Appellant argued that the six-month period should be calculated from the date of receipt of the order, not the date of the order itself. The Appellant relied on a judgment by the Gujarat High Court to support their position.

4. The High Court analyzed the provisions and related laws, noting the absence of provisions for condonation of delay in filing ROM Applications. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the ROM Application was to rectify mistakes, and the strict interpretation of the time limit provision would render the party remedyless.

5. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court held that the time taken to obtain a copy of the order should be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. The Court concluded that the Appellant's ROM Application, filed within six months of receiving the order, was within the prescribed time limit.

6. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, and restored the ROM Application for further consideration on its merits. The Court clarified that the time limit for filing such applications should be counted from the date of receipt of the order, not the date of the order itself.

---