9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 131 - HC - CustomsDenial of refund claim - whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the restoration application on the premise that COD clearance is required - Held that - Court extended the concept of dispute resolution by High-Powered Committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving State Government and their instrumentalities. The appeal in this case was filed on 25.09.2004 and therefore, prima facie the appellant is justified in saying that there was no requirement for clearance by the High Powered Committee. The Tribunal was at error in dismissing the appeal at the first instance. Even otherwise, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Vs. UOI, reported in 2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court , the restoration application has been filed on 30.5.2011. The law as it stands on and after 17.2.2011 is that there is no requirement of getting clearance from the COD. The Tribunal had failed to note the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. - when the restoration application was filed on 30.5.2011 by the appellant, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1994 (1) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA does not apply to the State Government and its instrumentalities - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of restoration application by the Tribunal based on the requirement of COD clearance. 2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court judgments regarding the necessity of COD clearance for filing appeals. 3. Justification of the Tribunal's decision in dismissing the restoration application. Analysis: 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by a government undertaking against the rejection of a refund claim. The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal due to the lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). Despite subsequent developments, the restoration application was also dismissed by the Tribunal for the same reason. 2. The appellant argued that the requirement of COD clearance was no longer valid based on a Supreme Court judgment in the Electronics Corporation of India case. The appellant had been pursuing the matter before the COD, even though the COD had ceased to function under the orders of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal's dismissal of the restoration application was challenged on the grounds that the COD clearance was no longer necessary as per the Supreme Court's decision. 3. The High Court analyzed the legal position post the Electronics Corporation of India case and held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the restoration application based on the outdated requirement of COD clearance. The Court emphasized that the law no longer mandated COD clearance for appeals involving State Governments and their instrumentalities. The Court distinguished the case cited by the respondent, highlighting that it did not apply to the present situation where the Supreme Court's decision had rendered the COD clearance obsolete. 4. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the restoration application based on the COD clearance requirement was erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appellant's arguments regarding the inapplicability of the COD clearance were accepted, leading to the allowance of the appeal. By carefully examining the legal developments and the specific circumstances of the case, the High Court provided a detailed analysis to justify its decision to overturn the Tribunal's ruling and grant relief to the appellant based on the updated legal position regarding the necessity of COD clearance for appeals involving government entities.
|
