9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contend that necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD) hasn’t been obtained hence appeal is not maintainable – held that as per the clarificatory orderfor above, impugned ratio of ONGC is not applicable so COD clearance is not required – delay is condonable so Comm(A) should have decided the appeal on merits – appeal is allowed by way of remand X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. 3. On behalf of the Revenue, a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of this appeal on ground that the necessary clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD) in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in ONGC v. CCE, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) as clarified by the order dated 7-1-1994, reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the High Power Committee was not to take away those remedies………. It is abundantly clear that the machinery contemplated is only to ensure that no litigation comes to Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house Committee……" 5. As far as the instant case is concerned, the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance without goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined to think that the order had been substantially complied with. The Commissioner (A) should in all fairness have condoned the delay by extending the period of compliance and treated the order to have been complied with as has been complied within the extended period, and decided the appeal on merits. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the circumstances is fit to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
