9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.3.2006 and similar such demand of Rs.72,82,79,718/- for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. Against the demand so raised, the appellant had discharged its liability to the extent of Rs.2,77,83,510/-. While raising above tax demand penalty of Rs.1,89,17,52,171/- was also levied. Option was granted to the appellant to discharge the duty liability in order to avail reduction in penalty to the extent of 25% of the tax demand. 2. In the course of adjudication, learned Adjudicating Authority considering various contentions raised by appellant held that the appellant was providing Business Auxiliary Service and storage and ware housing service and liable to service tax. 3. While adjudication has been done with aforesaid consequences, a preliminary question on maintainability arose in this appeal in view of law laid down by Apex Court prescribing machinery of Committee on Dispute to resolve disputes of Public Sectors at their level before approaching Courts or Tribunal for such resolution. Apex Court time and again has held that it shall be the obligation of every court and every Tribunal where a dispute of Public Sectors is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from Committee o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deavour to resolve the matters" The Apex Court further held that: "5. Accordingly, there, should be no bar to the lodgement of an appeal or petition either by the Union of India or the Public Sector Undertakings before any court or tribunal so as to save limitation. But, before such filing every endeavour should be made to have the clearance of the High Power Committee. However, as to what the court or tribunal should do if such judicial remedies are sought before such a court or tribunal, the order of 11 th October 1991 clarifies: "It shall be the obligation of every Court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the Committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with." In para 6 of the judgment in the case of ONGC Vs CCE - 1994 (70) ELT 45 (SC) the Court held as under: "6 . Wherever appeals, petitions etc. are filed without the clearance of the High Power Committee, so as to save limitation, the appellant or the petitioner as the case may be, shall within a month from such filing, refer the matter to the High Power Committee with prior noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The States/ Union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all inter-departmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matter should not be carried to a court of law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of disputes between public sector undertakings and Union of India, this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE [1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432] called upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle such matters. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission Anr. V. CCE [1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541], this Court directed the Central Government to set up a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a central entity. The desirability of having a committee to sort out differences between public sector undertakings, State Governments, different Govt. departments have been highlighted by this Court in several cases. In Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. V. Collector and Ors. [2003 (3) SCC 472] it was inter alia as follows: "14. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
