9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1241 - SC - Central ExciseSeeking rectification of the order - application was filed on the ground that while passing the order dated 30th October 2012, the CESTAT did not notice the fact that the application filed by the present appellant was pending before the Committee of Disputes - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The second application was filed before the CoD on 11th February 2011. In the meantime, the judgment of this Court in the case of ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT was delivered on 17th February 2011, which has done away with the mechanism seeking permission of CoD. As such, the second application of the appellant could not be considered by the CoD. The question of interest, therefore, has not been addressed by any of the authorities. The matter is remitted to the CESTAT for consideration of the limited aspect of interest on duty - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
Appeal challenging order of High Court dismissing CESTAT appeal seeking rectification of previous order due to pending application before CoD; Duty demand on PSU; Permission granted by CoD for appeal on penalty aspect only; Appeal allowed by CESTAT setting aside penalty; Directions recalled by Supreme Court regarding approval from CoD; Miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal dismissed by CESTAT; Dismissal of restoration application by High Court; Liability to pay interest on duty; Application for refund rejected; Judgment of Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited case; Consideration of interest on duty issue. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the order of the High Court of Calcutta, which dismissed the CESTAT appeal seeking rectification of a previous order due to a pending application before the Committee of Disputes (CoD). The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), was served with a Show Cause Notice proposing a duty demand of Rs.15.66 crore for clearances made between July 2000 to December 2004. 2. The CoD granted permission to the appellant to pursue the appeal only on the penalty aspect, holding the duty dispute as revenue neutral. The appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT, which was allowed, setting aside the penalty. 3. Subsequently, the appellant deposited the duty demand under protest due to authorities' letters directing the deposit. A fresh application was filed before the CoD seeking permission to pursue the appeal regarding the duty aspect. 4. The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in the Electronics Corporation of India Limited case, which eliminated the need for CoD approval. The appellant's miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT, maintaining the appeal on the penalty aspect but dismissing it on the duty demand due to lack of CoD clearance. The High Court upheld the dismissal. 5. The Supreme Court considered the unique circumstances of the case, noting that the CoD could not consider the second application due to the changed legal position post the Electronics Corporation of India Limited judgment. The issue of interest on duty remained unaddressed by any authority, leading the Court to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the CESTAT for consideration of interest on duty. 6. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's order and remitting the matter to the CESTAT for the limited aspect of interest on duty, with no costs awarded. Any pending applications were directed to stand disposed of.
|
