9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed of. - W. P. 15779 (W) of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2014 - Harish Tandon,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Avra Majumder, Ms. Sudeshna Majumder For the Respondent : Mr. R. N. Das, Mr. Subir Saha ORDER This writ application is filed assailing the order dated 29th January, 2014 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty demanded and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant tribunal have not dismissed the said application on merit but on the technicality that the appellant did not produce the clearance from CoD nor produce any document that the application seeking clearance is pending. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wered 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 Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an inhouse committee. [see para 3 of the order dated 7.1.1994 (supra) Whilst the principle and the object behind the aforestated Orders is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 . The orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court which required CoD clearance having been recalled, the learned Tribunal patently erred in dismissing the said application and the appeal on the purported ground that SAIL had not produced evidence of having applied for clearance from the CoD or on the ground that SAIL had not produced any clearance from the CoD. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A.Murthy vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 a decision of the Supreme Court en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
