9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 82 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Waiver of pre-deposit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Clearance from COD not obtained - Held that - Stand of the tribunal that the application is not maintainable because of nonproduction of clearance from CoD. is not sustainable. - The tribunal is directed to dispose of the said application afresh in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties. - Following decision of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Versus CESTAT, KOLKATA 2013 (10) TMI 1097 - Calcutta High Court - Writ disposed of.
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on technicality of not producing clearance from CoD or evidence of pending application. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order of the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal's decision was based on the technicality that the petitioner did not produce clearance from the Committee on Disputes (CoD) or any document showing the pending application seeking clearance. The petitioner relied on an unreported judgment of the High Court where a similar point was raised and the bench held that the requirement of CoD clearance had been recalled by a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had observed that the mechanism of CoD had led to delays in litigation and had outlived its utility. Therefore, the tribunal erred in dismissing the application based on the requirement of CoD clearance, which was no longer applicable. The petitioner further relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that a principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court is applicable to all cases, regardless of the stage of pendency, unless expressly indicated otherwise. The judgment emphasized that since the orders requiring CoD clearance had been recalled, the tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for lack of such clearance was unsustainable. The High Court, in light of the legal principles enunciated, set aside the impugned order and directed the tribunal to reconsider the application in accordance with the law within two months, providing an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard. The High Court disposed of the writ petition without calling for affidavits, clarifying that the allegations in the petition were not admitted by the respondents. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of applying legal principles consistently and ensuring that outdated requirements or procedures are not used to dismiss valid applications. The decision emphasized the need for adherence to legal precedents and the proper interpretation of statutory provisions in such matters.
|
