9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h February, 2011 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1883/2011, Electronic Corporation India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others. By this order, it was held that mechanism of COD device has outlived its utility and the scenario has changed and, therefore, directions issued by the Supreme Court in earlier orders, stand recalled. 2. The respondent has contested the application on the ground that in the present case COD had refused permission to the Revenue to pursue or file the present appeals pursuant to meeting held on 16th October, 2008, the minutes of which were circulated on 4th November, 2008. This is factually correct. 3. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the present applications have to be dismissed in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Hon?ble Supreme Court in one case and decision on the same is pending, following interim directions are issued, with the approval of the competent authority, for strict compliance: (I) No Ministry/Department of Public Sector Undertaking under them may re-open those cases in which clear decision has been issued by the CoD prior to 17.2.2011, AND (II) Ministries/Departments may circulate the instructions to all concerned offices/PSUs under their administrative control indicating that any violation may be viewed seriously and may invite administrative/disciplinary action. 4. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Law, Department of Legal Affairs vide Dy No.246 Adv (B) dated 18.2.2013. Receipt of this O.M. may kindly be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said items were again taken up for consideration in the meeting held on 16th October, 2008 and permission sought by the Revenue was declined. However, in the minutes of the meeting dated 16th October, 2008, there is an apparent error as both the items 1 and 2 have been referred to as ITA 4740/Del/2004 relating to assessment year 2001-02. There was no need to take two items separately, when they were same. It is obvious that there is a typographical error in the minutes of the meeting held on 16th October, 2008 and the second item relates to assessment year 2002-03 and ITA No.4741/Del/2004. 7. The statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent referred to above is taken on record for this year as well (i.e. Assessment Year 2002-03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
