9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1097 - HC - Central ExciseWaiver of Pre-deposit of duty and Penalty Committee of Disputes Held that - The application dismissed in the ground that SAIL had not produced the requisite Committee of Disputes clearance Held that - The orders of the Supreme Court which required CoD clearance having been recalled, the learned Tribunal patently erred in dismissing the said application and the appeal on the purported ground that SAIL had not produced evidence of having applied for clearance from the CoD or on the ground that SAIL had not produced any clearance from the CoD. A principle of law is applicable to all cases, irrespective of stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, the law from the inception unless, of course, the Supreme Court expressly indicates that the decision would have prospective effect - the appeal was filed before 17th February, 2011 when the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court recalling the earlier orders was pronounced - The orders whereby clearance was required having been recalled, the appeal and the stay application could not have been dismissed on the ground of want of clearance or want of an application for clearance order set aside matter restored before the CESTAT.
Issues:
Challenge to CESTAT order dismissing appeal and stay application due to lack of COD clearance. Analysis: The High Court dealt with a writ application challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) along with its application for dispensation of pre-deposit due to the purported reason that SAIL had not produced the required COD (Committee of Disputes) clearance. SAIL had preferred the appeal against an order confirming an excise duty demand along with interest and penalty. The High Court noted the historical context of the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) and Committee on Disputes (CoD) established by the Government of India to resolve disputes involving public sector undertakings. The Supreme Court had previously directed that legal proceedings should not proceed without clearance from CoS, but later recalled these orders due to delays and complications in the resolution process. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the appeal and stay application based on the requirement of COD clearance, especially after the Supreme Court had recalled the orders mandating such clearance. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court are applicable to all cases, regardless of when the appeal was filed. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. The Court directed the Tribunal to decide on the stay application within two months, ensuring a fair hearing for both parties. Affidavits were not called for, and the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted. The Court also instructed for urgent supply of a certified copy of the order to the parties upon request. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the incorrect dismissal of SAIL's appeal and stay application by the Tribunal due to the absence of COD clearance, which was no longer a mandatory requirement following the Supreme Court's recall of previous orders. The Court emphasized the application of Supreme Court principles to all cases and directed the Tribunal to handle the stay application appropriately within a specified timeframe, ensuring procedural fairness for both parties.
|
