2014 (1) TMI 1524 - AT - Customs

Restoration of appeal - COD clearance not taken - Held that - no clearance is required to be taken for pursuing appeal before the Tribunal, the fact that Revenue had not applied for such clearance, will not change the legal position. It is also admitted that there is no time limit for applying to the Committee on Disputes for seeking such clearance. As such, the above fact will not make any difference - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for not obtaining COD clearance.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI considered a restoration application filed by the Revenue to restore an appeal dismissed for not obtaining COD clearance. The appeal was dismissed in a previous order, but the appellant was given liberty to seek revival after obtaining the required clearance. The Revenue argued that, based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, no clearance was needed anymore. The respondent's advocate contended that since the appellant never applied for clearance and now claimed it was unnecessary, the appeal should not be restored. Reference was made to a Tribunal order from the Kolkata Bench regarding a matter referred to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal acknowledged that as per the Supreme Court decision, no clearance was required to pursue an appeal, regardless of the Revenue not applying for it. The absence of a time limit for seeking clearance further supported this position. The Tribunal noted that the issue referred to the Larger Bench in another case did not align with the present situation, as it involved pending or rejected applications, unlike the current scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application and restored the appeal for final disposal on a specified date.

The judgment highlights the significance of the Supreme Court decision regarding the necessity of COD clearance for pursuing appeals before the Tribunal. It clarifies that the absence of an application for clearance by the Revenue does not alter the legal requirement, especially when there is no specified time limit for seeking such clearance. The Tribunal's differentiation of the issue referred to the Larger Bench in another case underscores the specificity of the circumstances involved in each matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision to restore the appeal underscores the adherence to legal principles and precedents established by higher courts.