Appeal period computed from ROM decision, not original order date. Commissioner's error corrected. Timely appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation as it was within two months from the rejection of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, not from the date of the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the original order date for calculating the appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, should be the date of the ROM decision. The appeal was deemed timely, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
2. Consideration of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application.
3. Determination of the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal No. 169/2021 dated 28.07.2021, which rejected the appeal against the Order-in-Original on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within two months from the date of rejection of the ROM application (06.10.2020), not from the date of the original order (22.11.2019). The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly considered the date of the Order-in-Original for calculating the appeal period, instead of the date of the ROM rejection.

2. Consideration of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application:
The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake on 06.10.2020, which was rejected on the same date. The appellant contended that the original Adjudicating Authority passed an ex-parte order despite the appellant submitting a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The Tribunal noted that the application pointed out apparent errors, such as the failure to consider the written submissions and the incorrect classification of the appellant under Goods Transport Agency. The Tribunal held that once an ROM application is adjudicated, the relevant date for the original order to attain finality is the date of the ROM decision.

3. Determination of the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for computing the period of two months for filing an appeal should be the date when the ROM application was decided, not the date of the original order. This interpretation aligns with Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows for rectification of mistakes within two years. The Tribunal cited precedents, including the case of United Corporation v. Comm of C. Ex Chandigarh, which supported this view. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed on 07.12.2020 was within the prescribed period, as it was filed within two months from the ROM decision date (06.10.2020).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, as the appeal was filed within the permissible period. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of considering the ROM decision date for computing the limitation period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

---