https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257355 The Tribunal rejected all Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications and dismissed miscellaneous applications not pressed. The Revenue's preliminary objection on the filing period of ROM applications, exceeding the six-month limit under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was upheld. The Tribunal clarified that Section 35C(2) does not allow for condonation of filing delays in ROM applications and ruled out the applicability of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in this case. The automatic interest liability as per the Superintendent of Central Excise's letter was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the applications. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:12:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257355 The Tribunal rejected all Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications and dismissed miscellaneous applications not pressed. The Revenue's preliminary objection on the filing period of ROM applications, exceeding the six-month limit under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was upheld. The Tribunal clarified that Section 35C(2) does not allow for condonation of filing delays in ROM applications and ruled out the applicability of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in this case. The automatic interest liability as per the Superintendent of Central Excise's letter was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257355