2014 (1) TMI 92 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Restoration on production of necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes - Held that - appellants have filed restoration application which was disposed of by the Bench vide their order dated 12-3-2008. The Bench felt that the appellants had not been given permission or clearance to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. We fully agree with the learned AR that once the Tribunal has taken a decision, the second ROA is not maintainable - Board s instructions dated 24-3-2011 are very clear to the effect that the proposals which had already been sent to the Committee and no decision have been taken till 17-2-2011, shall be deemed to be covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court and permission from COD would not be required. In this case, the application made before COD already stands decided by the minutes of meeting held on 2-11-2006 vide which the appellant was not granted permission to pursue the appeal - Restoration denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration application for Final Order No. 374-377/2006-S.T.
2. Permission requirement from Committee on Disputes.
3. Board's instructions dated 24-3-2011.
4. Second restoration application after initial rejection.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a restoration application for Final Order No. 374-377/2006-S.T. after it was dismissed with liberty to seek restoration upon obtaining necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The first restoration application was rejected as the Committee's decision only required the parties to settle the matter without granting permission to maintain the appeal in the Tribunal.

2. The appellants filed a subsequent restoration application citing a Supreme Court decision stating no permission was needed from the Committee on Disputes to pursue the appeal. They also mentioned attempts to resolve the issue with the Central Excise Commissionerate without a final conclusion. However, the Revenue opposed the application, arguing against filing a second restoration application for the same matter. The Tribunal upheld the earlier decision, stating that a second restoration application is not maintainable after a decision has been made.

3. The Tribunal considered the Board's instructions dated 24-3-2011, which clarified that proposals sent to the Committee without a decision until 17-2-2011 would be covered by the Supreme Court's ruling, eliminating the need for permission from the Committee on Disputes. In this case, the earlier decision by the Committee on Disputes, denying permission to pursue the appeal, was already made before the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the reliance on the Board's instructions inappropriate in this context.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification to recall the earlier order and rejected the restoration application. The Tribunal emphasized that once a decision has been made, a second restoration application cannot be allowed, as it would amount to sitting in appeal over its own prior decision. The application was rejected based on these grounds.

This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the restoration applications, the significance of the Committee on Disputes' decision, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, and the Tribunal's adherence to its prior decisions and relevant instructions in rejecting the second restoration application.