9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1341 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for Restoration of appeal Clearance from the Committee on Disputes not taken Held that - The Board has decided not to pursue the matter and the same was also not listed before the COD for clearance at the relevant time and hence not pending thus, the question of restoration of appeal does not arise at all - the application for Restoration of Appeal is not maintainable Decided against Applicant.
Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD).
Analysis: 1. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The Revenue filed an application for restoration of appeal (ROA) seeking to restore the dismissed appeal. The department was directed to provide evidence of obtaining clearance from COD. The Revenue argued that clearance from COD was not required based on a Supreme Court decision. 2. The Ld. Commissioner (AR) submitted a letter from the Board stating that the case was never listed for consideration by COD as the Board had decided not to pursue the appeal. Since the matter was not pending before COD and the Board had decided not to pursue it, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for the restoration of the appeal. Therefore, the application for ROA was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the appeal was not listed before the Committee on Disputes for clearance, as the Board had already decided not to pursue the matter. As a result, the Tribunal found that the question of restoring the appeal did not arise, leading to the dismissal of the application for restoration of appeal. 4. The judgment highlights the importance of obtaining necessary clearances and following proper procedures in pursuing appeals. In this case, since the Board had decided not to pursue the appeal and it was not listed before the COD, the Tribunal held that the application for restoration of appeal was not maintainable. This case underscores the significance of adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters to avoid unnecessary delays and complications in the judicial process.
|
