2017 (2) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he said application has been preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing the original order, appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal. [2.0] It is the case on behalf of the appellant that from the date of service of notice of the order, which was sought to be rectified, within six months the rectification application was filed. However, the learned CESTAT dismissed the said application considering the starting point of limitation of rectification as the date of the order sought to be rectified, and therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration is, whether for the purpose of filing the rectification application, period of limitation of six months would commence from the date of the order, whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o, in paragraph nos.14 to 16 the Division Bench has observed and held as under; "14. There is one more aspect of the matter. The Technical Officer of CESTAT vide communication dated 23/08/2005 has returned the papers of ROM Application on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Section 35C(2) of the Act provides for the period of limitation coupled with the powers of the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record or amend any order passed under Section 34C(1) of the Act. At the first blush it appears that the period of limitation has to be computed at any time within six months from the date of the order. However, when one reads the latter portion of the provision, it becomes abundantly clear that the period of six .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... understood so as to mean from the date of the receipt of the order. 16. Therefore, the action of the Technical Officer to return the papers of ROM Application without even placing the same before the Bench concerned is not only bad in law, but is not supported by the provisions of the Act." [2.3] Some what similar question came to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ritaben Kamleshbhai Mehta, Through P.O.A. Devang Kamleshbhai Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2015 (2) GLR 1664. Before the learned Single Jude the question was whether the period of limitation to file the Appeal against the order of Deputy Collector, which was 90 days is required to be computed from the date on which the order of fir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X