9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 161 - AT - Central ExcisePermission from Committee of Disputes Held that - The Appeal was filed on 06.09.2010 and no permission from the Committee of Disputes has been obtained by the Applicant/Appellant Neither any proof that any application has been pending permission before the Committee of Disputes, has been produced Following M/s. Burn Standard vs. CCE, Bolpur 2013 (11) TMI 615 - CESTAT KOLKATA permission would not be required only in those cases where appeal were filed after 17.02.2011 and where permission from Committee of Disputes was pending as on 17.02.2011 Decided against Assessee.
Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Requirement of clearance from the Committee on Dispute (COD) for pursuing appeal.
Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.43,93,959.00 and an equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Applicant/Appellant had not obtained necessary clearance from the Committee on Dispute (COD) to pursue the Appeal filed on 06.09.2010. The Senior Advocate for the Applicant confirmed that no clearance was obtained from the COD, and there was no proof to show that the Applicant sought permission from the COD, which was pending as of the date of a judgment by the Honorable Supreme Court in a specific case. 2. The Advocate for the Revenue argued that according to a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Burn Standard vs. CCE, Bolpur, permission from COD would not be required for appeals filed after 17.02.2011 or in cases where the application for COD permission was pending as of the date of the Supreme Court's decision in the Electronics Corporation of India's case. The present Appeal was filed on 06.09.2010, and no permission from the COD was obtained by the Applicant. The Tribunal observed that permission would not be required only for cases where appeals were filed after 17.02.2011 and where permission from COD was pending as of that date. Consequently, the present Appeal was dismissed due to the lack of COD permission, and the Stay Petition was also disposed of accordingly. 3. In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of obtaining clearance from the Committee on Dispute for pursuing appeals, as per the relevant legal provisions and precedents. Failure to secure such clearance within the specified timelines led to the dismissal of the Appeal in this case, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance in legal matters related to duty waiver and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
