9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Commissioner of Central Excise, against Original Order No. 30/COMMR./BOL/10, dated 28th May, 2010 confirming Central Excise Duty demand of Rs. 42,65,979/- along with Education Cess of Rs. 85,320/- and Higher Education Cess of Rs. 42,660/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 43,93,959/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. The appeal has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that it had been filed by the appellant, Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, wholly owned by the Government of India, against the Union of India and its officials with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstitution Bench in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India. By a judgment and order dated 17th February, 2011 reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.) the constitution Bench recalled the earlier orders of the Supreme Court observing as follows : "9. The idea behind setting up of this Committee, initially, called a High-Powered Committee (HPC), later on called as "Committee of Secretaries" (CoS) and finally termed as "Committee on disputes" (CoD) was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved, by an empowered CoD. The machinery contemplated was only to ensure that no litigation comes to Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various orders reported as (i) 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, dated 11-10-1991, (ii) (2004) 6 SCC 437, dated 7-1-1994, and (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 39, dated 20-7-2007. 10. In the circumstances, we hereby recall the following Orders reported in: (i) 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, dated 11-10-1991 [1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (ii) (2004) 6 SCC 437, dated 7-1-1994 [1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)] (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 39, dated 20-7-2007 [2009 (233) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 482 (S.C.)] (iv) For the aforestated reasons, I.A. No. 4 filed by the assessee in Civil Appeal No. 1903/2008 is dismissed." 7. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Committee of Disputes had not been obtained. 10. The question whether an appeal can be dismissed on the sole ground that the appeal had been filed without permission from the Commissioner of Disputes has been decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee in an unreported judgment and/or order dated 26th April, 2013 of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in G.A. No. 996 of 2013, CEXA No. 4 of 2013 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Siliguri Commissionerate) [2014 (300) E.L.T. 367 (Cal.)]. 11. Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy appearing on behalf of the revenue cited a judgment and/or order dated 11th January, 2013 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Air India Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 a decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases, irrespective of stage of pendency thereof because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from the inception unless, of course, the Supreme Court expressly indicates that the decision would have prospective effect. May be, as contended by Mr. Maity, the appeal was filed before 17th February, 2011 when the Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court recalling the earlier orders was pronounced. The orders whereby clearance was required having been recalled, the appeal and the stay application could not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
