9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to consider the appeal, in view of the fact that, the Committee on Disputes (CoD) put into place by orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was no longer in vogue by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2011 (265) ELT 11 (SC) [Electronics Corporation of India Ltd-Versus-Union of India). Moreover, with the CoD system being done away with, CESTAT ought to have admitted the appeal of the petitioner considered the same, on merits. In any event, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner should be construed to have the necessary clearance from the CoD. The appeal carried against the first order in original was with the requisite permission of the CoD. The appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/KB/2017 recording that, the resolution plan of the petitioner came into force with immediate effect. The moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was declared to be over. Consequently, the petitioner can proceed with the matter. The petitioner assails an order dated September 17, 2012 passed by CESTAT. By the impugned order CESTAT refused to revive an appeal on the ground that, it need not interfere with the order dated September 11, 2008. It appears from the records that, the petitioner was issued a showcause cum demand notice dated August 8, 1992 alleging irregularly availing MODVAT credit for the period from July 1987 to June 1992. Such show-cause cum demand notice was confirmed against the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the less filed an application before the appellate authority on March 24, 2009 for reconsideration of the decision of the CoD. The CoD, however, did not reconsider its decision. The appellate authority also did not allow the petitioner to pursue the appeal. However, in the interregnum, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011(265) E.L.T. 11(S.C) [Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India] did away with the system of the CoD. The right of appeal sought to be exercised by the petitioner, is a statutory right. Such right flows out of a statute. It is available to any litigant governed by the appeal provisions in respect thereof. The petitioner herein, as a litigant, has the statutory right of appeal. Such right of appeal was sought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by COD. With respect, when the CoD mechanism was in force the petitioner preferred the appeal within the statutory period for preferring the appeal. Such appeal was dismissed on the ground of lack of CoD clearance with liberty to approach CESTAT upon obtaining clearance from CoD. With the CoD system itself being the embargo put in place by the CoD clearance mechanism, disputes. The right to prefer the appeal revive been done away, CESTAT ought to consider and decide such appeal on merits. Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (supra), Steel Authority of India Ltd.(supra) and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur (supra) considers such scenarios and are of the view that, the appeal should be heard on merits. General Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
