9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All the three Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by the Revenue praying for recall of the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. 2. Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that this Tribunal by orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that the clearance of Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat) was not obtained in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (1995) SUPPL. 4 ACC 541. According to the Ld. D.R., now a constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation India Ltd. v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011 found that clearance of Committee on Disputes is not required and accordingly, the direction issued earlier in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled. Since the order of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled, according to the Ld. D.R., it may not be necessary for the Department to obtain the approval of Committee on Disputes, therefore, the Revenue has filed the Miscellaneous Petitions praying for recall of the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. On a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these appeals as directed by Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra). In the absence of any clearance from the Committee on Disputes, this Tribunal dismissed all the appeals of the Revenue. 5. Subsequently, the Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) found that clearance from the Committee on Disputes is not required for filing the appeals before this Tribunal and accordingly, the direction issued in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled by the Apex Court. In view of the subsequent judgment of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), the Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petitions before this Tribunal on 15.01.2013. After receipt of these Miscellaneous Petitions, the Registry has not processed the same and these were not even registered and numbered. In the meantime, this Tribunal suo moto recalled the orders passed on 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 by an order dated 18.04.2013. The assessee filed Miscellaneous Petitions in M.P. Nos.133, 134, 135 136/Mds/2014 against the order of this Tribunal dated 18.4.13. This Tribunal by an order dated 31.07.2015 examined the issue elaborately and found that the order dated 18.04.02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear in which it was taken on file. The number should be allotted on the day on which the appeal was actually taken on file. In this case, the Miscellaneous Petitions were filed on 15.01.2013 and these were not taken on file till 13.04.2016. Therefore, the number should have been allotted after 13.04.2016. Be that as it may. Now coming to the application filed by the Revenue, admittedly, the orders of this Tribunal were dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. Against the orders of the Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, the Revenue filed petitions on 15.01.2013, which is beyond the period of four years as provided in 254(2) of the Act. The original order passed by this Tribunal dismissing the appeals for want of clearance from Committee on Disputes was passed under Section 254(1) of the Act. In other words, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed and disposed of finally by an order dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 under Section 254(1) of the Act. 7. A question may also arise whether orders passed by this Tribunal on 20.8.2007 and 21.01.2008 are interim orders or final orders passed under Section 254(1) of the Act? This was examined by Bombay High Court in Air India Ltd. (supra) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harkhand High Court found that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application of Public Sector Undertaking. In other words, the prayer of the Public Sector Undertaking to restore the appeal on file was rejected by referring to the judgment of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra). 11. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of Bombay High Court in Air India Ltd. (supra). In the case before the Bombay High Court, the Department appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for failure of obtaining clearance from Committee on Disputes. The Bombay High Court found that the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal is an order passed under Section 254(1) of the Act and held that the judgment of Apex Court consequently doing away with approval of Committee on Disputes cannot be a reason to recall the order beyond the period of four years. In the case before Bombay High Court, in fact, the petition was filed after five years. The Bombay High Court categorically held that the limitation provided under Section 254(2) of the Act was very much applicable and accordingly rejected the prayer of the Revenue to restore the appeal on file. 12. We have also carefully gone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
