2008 (11) TMI 484 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Need for obtaining a clearance certificate from the Committee of Secretaries for the second time.
2. Requirement of a fresh clearance certificate due to different grounds of appeal.
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on obtaining a clearance certificate.
4. Continuation of original proceedings and the impact on the need for a fresh clearance certificate.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by a PSU Unit against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and disputes related to exemption notifications and additional charges. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) passing a de novo Order-in-Appeal. The appellant contended that obtaining a clearance certificate from the Committee of Secretaries for the second time was unnecessary, as it had already been obtained initially. The appeal was dismissed earlier due to the lack of this certificate.

2. The learned SDR argued that a fresh clearance certificate was required this time because the grounds of appeal in the present case differed from the initial grounds of litigation. However, the appellant's counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions, including National Fertilizers Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana, and a miscellaneous order in the applicant's own case, stating that a fresh clearance certificate was not needed when there was a continuation of the original proceedings.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the issues of availing benefits of notifications and valuation remained consistent despite the remand of the matter. The Committee of Secretaries had already considered these issues during the initial clearance process. The Tribunal held that the present grounds of appeal being different from the original grounds did not warrant a fresh clearance certificate. The appellant was deemed free to raise legal questions at any time, and the need for repeated clearance was unnecessary. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the previous orders dismissing the appeal and restored it to its original number for further proceedings.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a fresh clearance certificate was not required when the issues under consideration were part of the original proceedings and the grounds of appeal had changed. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's right to raise legal questions was not restricted by the need for repeated clearance certificates. The case was restored for further proceedings, with a stay application scheduled for a hearing on a specific date.