Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Allied Fibers Ltd., imported capital goods between October 1994 and September 1995. A show cause notice was issued on 24.03.1998 demanding customs duty under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs dropped the proceedings on 27.3.1999. On appeal by the department, CESTAT set aside the order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on 30.7.2004. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, confiscated goods, and imposed penalty on 30.11.2006. The appellant appealed to CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal on 21.8.2014. The appellant did not receive the order and requested the Registrar on 8.1.2015 to hand over the order. The Registrar handed over the order on 9.1.2015. The appellant filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application on 8.5.2015, which was dismissed by CESTAT as time-barred, holding that the six-month period under Section 129B(2) runs from the date of the order (21.8.2014) and not from the date of receipt. The appellant challenged this dismissal in the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The High Court framed two questions of law: (a) whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the ROM application filed within six months from the date of receipt was beyond the time limit; and (c) whether the time limit of six months under Section 129B(2) applies only when the Tribunal acts suo moto. The High Court held that the six-month limitation under Section 129B(2) applies only to suo moto rectification by the Tribunal, not to applications filed by parties. For party-filed applications, the general law of limitation applies, and the application was within time as it was filed within six months from the date of receipt (9.1.2015). The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Tribunal to decide the ROM application on merits.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Rectification of Mistake - Limitation - Section 129B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - The time limit of six months under Section 129B(2) applies only when the Tribunal acts suo moto to rectify a mistake apparent from the record; it does not apply to applications filed by parties. For party-filed applications, the general law of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the ROM application as time-barred when it was filed within six months from the date of receipt of the order. (Paras 2, 6-8) B) Customs Law - Appeal - Limitation - Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 - The appeal under Section 130 is maintainable against an order dismissing a ROM application as time-barred. The High Court can examine whether the Tribunal correctly applied the limitation provision. (Para 1) C) Customs Law - Rectification of Mistake - Receipt of Order - Section 129B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - The period of limitation for filing a ROM application runs from the date of receipt of the order by the party, not from the date of the order. The appellant received the order on 9.1.2015 and filed the ROM application on 8.5.2015, which is within six months. (Paras 5, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the time limit of six months stipulated in Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 applies to an application for rectification of mistake filed by a party, or only when the Tribunal acts suo moto; and whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the ROM application as time-barred when it was filed within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of CESTAT dated 15.07.2017, and directed the Tribunal to decide the ROM application on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Limitation period for rectification of mistake application under Section 129B(2) of Customs Act
- 1962 applies only when Tribunal acts suo moto
- not when application is filed by party
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963 applies to applications under Section 129B(2) filed by parties
- ROM application filed within six months from date of receipt of order is within time.
