9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1130 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - Power of Committee of disputes - Held that - When the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, it was conscious of the law declared in the ONGC case reported in 1991 (10) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as to resolution of dispute between Union of India and Central PSUs of this country. It transpires from the minute of the Committee on Disputes under Sl.No.31 that appellant was permitted to contest appeal only on levy of penalty. It clearly demonstrates that the appellant was estopped to contest beyond the scope of decision of the Committee on Disputes on any other aspect. Further, the appellant has come after 7 years to the Tribunal for restoration of its appeal. It could not keep its appeal alive going to the higher court. It is therefore difficult to restore the appeals since the Tribunal does not have power to review its own orders in absence of specific provision in law granting power of review. Further, even though penalty was not imposed in the adjudication, there was no permission to litigate on duty demand. - decision of Committee on Disputes is no more requirement according to judgement of Supreme Court in ECIL case (2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court). But there is specific denial by Committee to dispute further probably to prevent wastage of time of the court as well as resources of the country. Therefore, appellant is not permitted to litigate further with Revenue. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether the Committee on Disputes has the power to restrict the right of appeal for a Central Public Sector Undertaking before the Tribunal. 2. Whether the appellant should be allowed to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal despite the Committee on Disputes granting permission to appeal on penalty aspect only. 3. Whether the Tribunal has the authority to review its own orders in the absence of a specific provision in the law granting such power. 4. Whether the appellant can litigate further with Revenue after the Committee on Disputes denies permission. Analysis: 1. The appellant vehemently opposed the action of the Tribunal through restoration applications, arguing that the Committee on Disputes lacked the authority to curtail their right of appeal. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. case, which clarified that the Committee's decision should not hinder a Central Public Sector Undertaking's litigation before the Tribunal. The confusion caused by a previous judgment was resolved, emphasizing that the Committee's decision should not affect the present appeals. 2. The appellant contended that despite the confusion in the law leading to the dismissal of their appeal, they should be allowed to pursue it before the Tribunal based on the current legal position. They highlighted that the Committee on Disputes had only granted permission to appeal on the penalty aspect, which was not applicable in their case as no penalty was imposed during adjudication. The appellant sought restoration of the appeal to ensure access to justice. 3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had waited seven years to seek restoration of their appeal and had not pursued the matter in higher courts. It was observed that the Tribunal lacked the power to review its own orders without a specific provision in the law granting such authority. Additionally, even though no penalty was imposed in the adjudication, there was no permission to litigate on the duty demand, further complicating the restoration of the appeals. 4. The Committee on Disputes had denied permission for the appellant to litigate further with Revenue, possibly to avoid wasting court time and national resources. Despite the Supreme Court judgment rendering the Committee's decision unnecessary, the appellant was still not allowed to dispute further with Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration applications, emphasizing that the appellant could not be deprived of justice without proper explanation of material facts, especially when a similar appeal from Revenue was pending before the Tribunal.
|
