https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312967 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed a rectification of mistake (ROM) application filed beyond six months from the final order. The Tribunal initially rejected the application citing Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act's six-month limitation. However, relying on Gujarat HC decisions, CESTAT held that the six-month period should be computed from the date of receipt of the order by the appellant, not from its passing. The Tribunal found errors apparent on record as vital submissions regarding Section 9D were not considered in the original adjudication, which relied primarily on third-party evidence and proprietor's admission regarding clandestine removal. en-us Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:40:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312967 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed a rectification of mistake (ROM) application filed beyond six months from the final order. The Tribunal initially rejected the application citing Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act's six-month limitation. However, relying on Gujarat HC decisions, CESTAT held that the six-month period should be computed from the date of receipt of the order by the appellant, not from its passing. The Tribunal found errors apparent on record as vital submissions regarding Section 9D were not considered in the original adjudication, which relied primarily on third-party evidence and proprietor's admission regarding clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312967