2013 (12) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of Appeals Held that - Following Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd. 2013 (11) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT - the matters which have been considered and decided by the Committee on Disputes and permission specifically denied cannot be reopened There was no merit in the application Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Restoration of appeals dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Restoration of Appeals
The applicants, Public Sector Undertakings, filed applications for restoration of appeals dismissed due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes. They relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs. UOI, which criticized the COD mechanism for causing delays in litigation. The applicants argued that despite the COD's denial of permission, the appeals should be restored based on the Supreme Court's decision. Additionally, they cited a High Court judgment where an appeal was reinstated due to lack of evidence regarding COD clearance. However, the Revenue referred to a Tribunal decision stating that once COD decides, parties are bound by its decision, preventing reopening of matters. The Tribunal noted that the COD had already declined permission before the Supreme Court's decision, rendering the applicants' reliance on the High Court judgment irrelevant.

Issue 2: Precedents and Legal Interpretation
The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting decisions, including the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's ruling in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. CESTAT and the Larger Bench's decision in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolkata. The Calcutta High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of producing evidence of COD clearance for appeal reinstatement, which was lacking in the present case. In contrast, the Larger Bench emphasized that decisions of COD, once made, cannot be revisited, citing the Supreme Court's stance on the COD mechanism's inefficiency and the need to uphold COD decisions to avoid reopening past cases. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' arguments and dismissed the applications based on the Larger Bench's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the applications for appeal restoration, emphasizing the binding nature of COD decisions and the importance of upholding such decisions to prevent reopening of settled matters. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and interpretations regarding the role and authority of the Committee on Disputes in appeal proceedings involving Public Sector Undertakings.