9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 169 - HC - Central ExciseStay application - Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that clearance from committee of disputes was not taken by the appellant - Held that - on 16th November, 2012 when the Tribunal applied its mind to the appeal, the order in the case of ONGC (1994 (1) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) constituting the committee of disputes was no longer operative. This subsequent event should have been taken note by the learned Tribunal to shorten the matter rather than relying on a technicality for the purpose of dismissing the appeal by holding that the order in ONGC was valid on 13th May, 2010 when the appeal was filed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal for not taking clearance from committee of disputes. Analysis: The appeal in question was dismissed by the Tribunal on the basis that the appellant did not obtain clearance from the committee of disputes. However, the Supreme Court had previously opined that the mechanism of such committees was causing delays in filing civil appeals and leading to revenue loss. The Supreme Court directed a Constitution Bench to reconsider the matter, which ultimately decided on recalling the orders constituting the committee of disputes. Therefore, by the time the Tribunal considered the appeal on 16th November 2012, the order constituting the committee of disputes was no longer valid. The Court noted that the Tribunal should have considered this subsequent event and decided on the appeal's merit rather than dismissing it based on a technicality related to the order's validity at the time of filing the appeal. The Court found merit in setting aside the order under challenge and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a decision based on merit. The judgment highlighted the inefficiencies of the committee of disputes mechanism and the need to consider the changed scenario post the Supreme Court's decision on recalling the orders related to such committees. This case serves as an example of how legal developments and subsequent events can impact the validity and applicability of procedural requirements, emphasizing the importance of considering the current legal landscape in adjudicating disputes.
|
