2018 (12) TMI 718

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application for rectification of mistake (here in after referred to as ROM), we note that the appellant had challenged the order of the Commissioner being Order-in-Original No.56-Collector/1990-91 dated 24.04.1991 before the Tribunal, by way of filing an appeal. Vide the said order, the Original Adjudicating Authority, apart from confirming the demands against the appellant, also confiscated certain goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Further, penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed upon the company. 2. While disposing the appeal, Tribunal vide its Final Order NO.A/188/2000 dated 14.03.2000 upheld the confiscation of goods but reduced the redemption f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r passed on 14.03.2000. Thereafter R.O.M. application filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide Miscellaneous Order No.05/2001/NB[DB] dated 04.01.2001. He submits that as per the provisions of Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides for filing a R.O.M. application, the period within which such application can be filed is of six Months from the date of the order. Inasmuch as the present application stand filed by the appellant after a gap of 17 years, the same has to be rejected as barred by limitation. By drawing our attention to the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s National Engg. Inds. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported as 2002 (139) E.L.T. 48 (Tri.-LB), he submits that there is no provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ries V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur reported as 2015 (323) E.L.T. 340 (All.), he submits that as held by the Hon'ble High Court the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of communication of the order to the affected party and not from mere date of passing of the order. As regards the date of the receipt of the order, learned advocate submits that the said miscellaneous order of the Tribunal was passed in the year 2000 but the copy of the same was procured by them subsequently in the year 2017 and the present miscellaneous application stand filed by the assessee in January, 2018. As such he submits that the date of receipt of the order should be considered as the relevant date for the purposes of limitation. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed latches on the part of the appellant to sleepover the matter for a long period of 17 years and to make no efforts to find out the decision on the ROM. As such we find no justifiable reasons to entertain the present ROM. 7. Further objection raised by the learned A.R. is that the appellant had already filed a ROM application, which stands rejected by the Tribunal vide its Miscellaneous Order No.05/2001/NB[DB} dated 04.01.2001. As per the settled law, there cannot be a subsequent ROM praying for rectifying an error passed in the miscellaneous order rejecting the ROM. 8 We have seen the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act which provide for filling a ROM application. The same empowers the Tribunal to rectify the mist....