TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(DMRC) for construction of 5.222 KM elevated viaduct and four stations on Vishvidyalay - Zahangirpuri corridor of MRT's Phase-II, had fabricated at site, concrete segments of the viaducts. There concrete segments were lifted and mounted on the piers with the help of launching trusses. The department was of the view that the concrete segments of elevated viaducts "pre-fabricated structural components" covered by sub-heading 68109100 of the Central Excise Tariff were chargeable to duty which had not been paid by the Appellant on this basis. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi accordingly vide order-in-original No. 1/08, dated 8-1-2008- (a) confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,13,18,639/- against the Appellant along with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in pursuance of the Tribunal's Final Order dated 14-3-2011 applied to the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner for refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 55 Lakhs along with interest. While the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 55 Lakhs was refunded on 18-10-2011, the interest was not paid. 1.5 The Appellant filed a CWP No. 8999/2011 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 15-12-2011 seeking direction for interest @12% p.a. on the pre-deposit. However, at the time of hearing of the writ petition on 23-12-2011, the Appellant sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Tribunal by way of rectification of its Final Order dated 14-3-2011. The CWP was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file ROM application before the Tribunal for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC and that the documents which could not be filed along with the ROM application may also be allowed to be placed on record. 4. Shri R.K. Verma, the learned Departmental Representative, opposed the ROM application pleading that - (a) the ROM application has been filed far beyond the date of expiry of the prescribed limitation period under Section 35C(2) and in this Section, there is no provision for condonation of delay; (b) a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 48 (Tribunal-LB) has held that there is no provision unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.), the limitation period of "six months from the date of the order" in Section 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [corresponding to Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944] is for the filing of application for rectification of mistake apparent from record. There is no provision in this Section or any other Section for condonation of delay in filing of application of rectification. In this regard, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur (supra) has in clear terms held that there is no provision in Section 35C(2) for condonation of delay and the Tribunal being a creation of statute, cannot travel beyond the confines of the statute. The provisions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and there is no scope for condonation of delay in filing of ROM application under Section 35C(2) when there is no provision for such condonation. The delay in filing of ROM application, therefore, cannot be condoned and the application has to be rejected as time barred. 10. Even otherwise when an appeal of an assessee is allowed by the Tribunal, it is not necessary to mention the directions regarding consequent relief in the order and non-mention of consequential relief in the Tribunal's order would not constitute an error apparent from record as, as held by the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. reported in....