9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 542 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed by Tribunal for want of clearance from Committee on Disputes (COD) - Held that - the issue before Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs Versus Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd 2016 (6) TMI 358 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT was to consider application for restoration of appeal dismissed earlier for want of clearance from COD. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground of delay. While considering the fact of the case as a whole, the Hon ble High Court observed that the delay in filing the Restoration application cannot be the ground for rejection as while dismissing their appeals, liberty was extended to the Revenue for its restoration after clearance from COD. Since COD is no more relevant after delivery of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Vs UoI 2011 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court , the appeal has been restored by the Hon ble High Court. - Restoration of appeal allowed
Issues:
Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of clearance from Committee on Disputes (COD) - Interpretation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd case - Relevance of COD clearance for pursuing litigation before the Tribunal - Application for restoration of appeal - Pending applications for COD clearance - Observations of different High Courts on the relevance of COD clearance - Delay in filing restoration application - Consideration of delay as a ground for rejection - Restoration of appeal by Hon'ble High Court - Relevance of pendency of application before COD - Operative part of the order. Analysis: The judgment involves a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal seeking restoration of an appeal dismissed earlier for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The Revenue argued that post the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd case, clearance from COD is not necessary to pursue litigation before the Tribunal. They cited various High Court judgments supporting this interpretation. The respondent, however, contended that the pendency of the application for COD clearance at the time of the Supreme Court's judgment was crucial. The Revenue clarified that in a similar case before the High Court, the appeal was restored based on the pending permission from COD. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument, emphasizing that the COD mechanism had lost its relevance post the Supreme Court's judgment. The High Court's observations in the Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd case were also considered, highlighting that delay in filing the restoration application cannot be a ground for rejection when the appeal was dismissed with the liberty to restore upon COD clearance. The Tribunal analyzed the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the Krishak Bharati Co-operative Ltd case, where the issue was the restoration of an appeal dismissed for lack of COD clearance. The High Court allowed the restoration application, emphasizing that delay should not hinder restoration when the appeal was dismissed with the possibility of revival upon COD clearance. The Tribunal noted that the pendency of the COD application at the time of the Supreme Court's judgment was not considered relevant by various High Courts, including Calcutta, Karnataka, and Meghalaya. Additionally, a previous decision by the Tribunal in CC Jaipur Vs Indian Airlines Ltd followed similar reasoning in restoring an appeal dismissed due to COD clearance issues. Ultimately, the Tribunal recalled the order dismissing the appeal and restored it to its original number, allowing the miscellaneous application. The judgment reaffirmed the diminishing relevance of COD clearance post the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd case and highlighted the importance of considering the overall context of the case rather than focusing solely on delays in restoration applications. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court, concluding the matter.
|
