2008 (3) TMI 203 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant PSU - as the appellants have already filed an application before Cabinet Secretary to seek permission to pursue the appeal the Commissioner s proceeding to recover the amount is not justified - Commissioner should not recover the amount till such time the matter is decided by the COD appellant s appeal is dismissed for want of clearance however granting liberty to file an application for restoration of appeal as and when they get the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries

Summary

Issues: Revenue recovery during appeal process, necessity of clearance certificate from Committee of Secretaries, admissibility of appeal without clearance certificate, interim orders during appeal process.

Analysis:

1. Revenue Recovery During Appeal Process:
The appellant, a PSU, filed an appeal against a duty amount exceeding Rs 3.33 crores. The revenue proceeded to recover the amounts before the Committee of Secretaries could consider the matter. The Department argued that the appellant should have informed the Commissioner about their pursuit before the Committee of Secretaries. The Bench noted that the revenue's recovery action was premature as the appellants had already applied to the Cabinet Secretary for permission to pursue the appeal. The Commissioner was directed not to recover the amount until the Committee of Secretaries made a decision.

2. Necessity of Clearance Certificate from Committee of Secretaries:
The appellant had applied to the Cabinet Secretary seeking permission to pursue the appeal, as required by a Board Circular. The Bench emphasized that the revenue should not recover the amounts until the Committee of Secretaries had considered the matter. The appeal's dismissal for lack of clearance was in line with the current procedural norms, but the appellants were granted liberty to seek restoration once they obtained the necessary clearance certificate.

3. Admissibility of Appeal Without Clearance Certificate:
The Final Order revealed that similar appeals by the appellant had been dismissed previously for not obtaining the clearance certificate. The Joint Commissioner and DR argued that if the appeal itself was not admissible, there was no basis for passing interim orders. However, the Bench retained the authority to issue interim directions if deemed necessary, despite the lack of admissibility due to the absence of the clearance certificate.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of obtaining a clearance certificate from the Committee of Secretaries before pursuing an appeal to prevent premature revenue recovery actions. The dismissal of the appeal for want of clearance was consistent with procedural requirements, with the appellants being granted the opportunity to seek restoration upon obtaining the necessary clearance certificate.