9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 183 - HC - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - earlier appeal was rejected by the tribunal for want of COD clearance - held that - The impugned order of the learned Tribunal may have been passed on 22nd April, 2013, four days before the Division Bench delivered its judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri, Commissionerate 2014 (5) TMI 169 - Calcutta High Court . The learned Tribunal ought, to have appreciated that its Larger Bench judgment in the case of Burn Standard 2013 (11) TMI 615 - CESTAT KOLKATA could no longer be good law in view of the judgment and/or order of the Single Bench of this Court dated 3rd January, 2013 in W.P. No. 1009 of 2012 (Steel Authority of India Limited v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zone), which was not interfered with or set aside by any higher forum. - Tribunal directed to dispose of the appeal/stay application as expeditiously as possible - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Dismissal of appeal for not obtaining approval from Committee of Disputes. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order confirming Central Excise Duty demand, along with interest and penalty, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as it was filed by a Government company without obtaining approval from the Committee of Disputes. The Supreme Court had previously directed that Public Sector Undertakings should not litigate in court without clearance from the Committee. However, a Constitution Bench later recalled the requirement for such clearance, stating that the mechanism had led to delays in litigation and outlived its utility. The appellant argued that the appeal should not be dismissed solely for not obtaining permission from the Committee of Disputes, citing a previous judgment in favor of the assessee. The Supreme Court's decision in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka was referenced to emphasize that a decision enunciating a legal principle applies to all cases from the inception. The appellant contended that since the orders requiring clearance had been recalled by the Supreme Court, the appeal should not have been dismissed on that ground. The judgment discussed various precedents, including a Delhi High Court case, to determine the applicability of the requirement for clearance from the Committee of Disputes. It was noted that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal without knowledge of the Supreme Court's decision, leading to rectification of the mistake later. The judgment emphasized that a decision of the Supreme Court is assumed to be the law from the beginning unless expressly stated otherwise. The Court held that the Tribunal's order was erroneous as it was passed before a relevant judgment and did not align with the law established by the Supreme Court. The judgment in another case was deemed incorrect in its interpretation of the law, clarifying that pending proceedings should not be dismissed for lack of permission post the Supreme Court's order recalling the clearance requirement. The impugned order was set aside, directing the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the appeal/stay application within two months from the date of the order. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the dismissal based on the lack of permission from the Committee of Disputes was not justified post the Supreme Court's recall of the requirement, and the Tribunal's order was found to be erroneous in light of the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.
|
