9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 668 - HC - CustomsDismissal of appeal on non obtaining necessary clearance from COD - Held that - On and from 17.02.2011, there was no necessity for obtaining any clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The order dated 18.02.2011 restoring Customs Appeal which had been dismissed by virtue of a final order on the ground of non obtaining clearance from COD, was passed in ignorance of the Supreme Court decision of 17.02.2011 of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. versus Union of India & Ors 2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT . There are justifiable reasons as to why the Tribunal passed that order because it was just one day after the decision of the Supreme Court(supra). However, the fact remains that on and from 17.02.2011, there was no requirement for obtaining a clearance from the Committee on Disputes. Therefore, as the law declared by the Supreme Court stood on 18.02.2011, the Tribunal was not correct in dismissing the revenue s appeal. The Tribunal has only rectified that mistake by allowing the revenue s said Customs ROA Application No. 41/2011 by reviving the appeal for hearing on merits - no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2012 - no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
Issues:
1. Conversion of writ petition into an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Restoration of a dismissed appeal due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes. 3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. UOI regarding the necessity of COD clearance. 4. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to revive the appeal based on the Supreme Court's ruling. 5. Assessment of the correctness of the impugned order dated 30.04.2012. Issue 1: Conversion of writ petition into an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962: The counsel for Air India Limited requested the writ petition to be treated as an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the impugned order was from the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Both parties agreed, leading to the re-numbering of the petition as a Cus. Act Appeal under Section 130. Issue 2: Restoration of a dismissed appeal due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes: The appellant's grievance arose from the dismissal of Customs Appeal No. 538/2007 due to the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of obtaining COD clearance before proceeding. However, the revenue later filed a Customs ROA Application seeking revival of the appeal based on a Supreme Court decision that rendered COD clearance unnecessary. Issue 3: Interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. UOI regarding the necessity of COD clearance: The Supreme Court's ruling in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. UOI highlighted the inefficiencies of the COD mechanism and recalled previous orders requiring COD clearance. The judgment clarified that post the Supreme Court's decision on 17.02.2011, there was no longer a need for COD clearance. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on 18.02.2011, based on the lack of COD clearance, was deemed incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. Issue 4: Validity of the Tribunal's decision to revive the appeal based on the Supreme Court's ruling: The Tribunal's decision to revive the appeal through the Customs ROA Application No. 41/2011, following the Supreme Court's decision, was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal rectified its mistake of dismissing the appeal for want of COD clearance, as clarified by the Supreme Court's ruling, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits. Issue 5: Assessment of the correctness of the impugned order dated 30.04.2012: The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2012. It concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to revive the appeal in line with the Supreme Court's ruling on COD clearance, thereby affirming the validity of the impugned order.
|
