9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 615 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal dismissed earlier for no Clearance from Committee of Disputes Clearance from Committee of Disputes is necessary for appeals filed prior to 18/2/2011 or it should be shown that the application for permission was pending before Committee of Disputes as on that date - The impact of the above decisions would be that Committee of Disputes permission would not be required in respect of cases pending with COD as on 17.2.2011, and cases arising thereafter - the appeal was filed prior to 17.02.2011 and this case was not pending with COD as on 17.02.2011 there was no merit in the present Application there was no reason to interfere with our Order dated 11.09.2008 Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of COD clearance. 2. Applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ECIL case. 3. Rejection of COD permission for appeal by Committee on Disputes. 4. Conflict between Tribunal decisions on COD permission requirement. Issue 1 - Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of COD clearance: The applicants filed a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of their appeal, Ex.Appeal No.165/08, which was dismissed for want of COD clearance. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Despite multiple rejections by COD for permission to pursue the appeal, the applicants continued to seek reconsideration, claiming that the decision was pending. The case was referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the issue due to conflicting decisions within the Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Bench to decide in line with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a similar matter. Issue 2 - Applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ECIL case: The contention of the applicant was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the ECIL case should apply to their situation, allowing restoration of the appeal irrespective of the pending COD permission. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal had allowed restoration in similar cases. However, the COD had declined permission twice, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision was deemed not applicable as the COD had already made its decision before a certain date. Issue 3 - Rejection of COD permission for appeal by Committee on Disputes: The COD had declined to accord permission for the appeal, citing reasons related to the reversal of modvat credit by the applicant. Despite subsequent applications for reconsideration, the COD reiterated its decision, emphasizing that the permission was not granted due to the failure to establish the reversal of the entire modvat credit. The rejection was considered final, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision was deemed not applicable to cases where permission had been denied by COD before a specific date. Issue 4 - Conflict between Tribunal decisions on COD permission requirement: A Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai had a different opinion regarding the relevance of COD permission post the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the ECIL case. The Larger Bench was tasked with resolving the conflicting opinions within the Tribunal. The High Court of Delhi had already addressed a similar issue, emphasizing that cases where COD permission was denied in the past could not be reopened based on the ECIL judgment. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that COD permission was not required for cases filed before a certain date and not pending with COD at that time. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the complexities surrounding the restoration of appeals dismissed for want of COD clearance and the varying interpretations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the ECIL case within the Tribunal.
|
