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>Appellate Tribunal rules second rectification of mistake application not maintainable based on legal precedents and limitation period interpretation.</h1> <h3>SR. GENERAL MANAGER, VEHICLE FACTORY Versus CC (GEN.), MUMBAI</h3> SR. GENERAL MANAGER, VEHICLE FACTORY Versus CC (GEN.), MUMBAI - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 289 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Maintainability of a second application for rectification of mistake (ROM) against an ROM application.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai deals with the issue of the maintainability of a second application for rectification of mistake (ROM) against an ROM application. The appellant's appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the refund claim was not maintainable as they did not challenge the assessed bill of entry by filing an appeal. The appellant submitted a ROM application against the Final Order, which was dismissed. The second ROM application was placed before the Tribunal, citing the Apex Court decision in Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. However, the Tribunal noted that the Apex Court clarified that the second ROM application should be filed within four years from the date of the rectified order, not the original order. The Tribunal also referred to the Larger Bench decisions in the cases of Berger Paints India Ltd. and LML Ltd., which held that a second application for rectification of mistake in an order rejecting an application for rectification is not maintainable. The Tribunal, considering the precedents and legal principles, concluded that the second ROM application in the present case was not maintainable.The Tribunal emphasized that the Apex Court's interpretation of the limitation period for filing a second ROM application from the date of the rectified order, as opposed to the original order, was crucial. The Tribunal highlighted that the Apex Court did not endorse the maintainability of a second ROM against an ROM application. The Tribunal further relied on the decisions of Larger Benches in similar cases to support its conclusion that a second application for rectification of mistake in an order rejecting an application for rectification is not permissible. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the second ROM application as not maintainable.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, delivered by the Vice-President, addressed the issue of the maintainability of a second application for rectification of mistake (ROM) against an ROM application. The Tribunal carefully considered the relevant legal principles, including the interpretation of the limitation period by the Apex Court and the decisions of Larger Benches in similar cases. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the second ROM application in the present case was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the application. The judgment provides a clear and detailed explanation of the legal reasoning behind the decision, ensuring clarity on the issue at hand.
TaxTMI 