9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 10 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal dismissed for no Clearance from Committee of Disputes Held that - The Tribunal in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata II 2013 (11) TMI 615 - CESTAT KOLKATA - the second and subsequent application filed before the Committee of Disputes seeking permission, were not considered as an application pending - the application that was filed earlier seeking clearance from the COD on 02.11.2006, was dismissed - The second application filed on 11th February, 2011, therefore, cannot be considered as an application pending before the Committee on Disputes as on 17.02.2011 there was no merit in the appeal Decided against Assessee.
Issues: Rectification of order due to COD clearance; Consideration of subsequent application by COD.
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the applicant sought rectification of an order dismissing their appeal for want of COD clearance. The Tribunal observed that the initial application for clearance from the COD was rejected, and a subsequent application filed by the applicant was not considered as pending before the COD. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that second and subsequent applications seeking permission were not considered pending as of a specific date. In the present case, the second application filed after the initial rejection could not be deemed pending before the Committee on Disputes. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's Miscellaneous application and dismissed it. The key argument presented by the applicant's advocate was that the clearance for duty and interest was pending, contrary to the Tribunal's observation in the previous order. However, the Department's representative contended that the initial application for clearance was rejected, and the subsequent application was not considered pending. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, relied on precedent to establish that subsequent applications for clearance were not deemed pending as of a specific date. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the second application filed by the applicant could not be considered pending before the Committee on Disputes, leading to the dismissal of the applicant's Miscellaneous application.
|
