9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the denial of exemption against which order W.P. No. 152 of 1977 was filed before this Court to quash the said order, and W. P. No. 455 of 1977 claiming refund of duty paid on NPK fertilizers. These writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge [1981 (8) E.L.T. 194 (Mad.)], but subsequently W.A. Nos. 507 508 of 1980 were allowed in favour of the Department by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10-3-1986 [1987 (27) E.L.T. 48 (Mad.)], which order was confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court by its order dated 20-1-1994 [1994 (69) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)]. 4.Thus, the facts of the case disclose that the appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 25/70 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules exempting mixed fertilizers falling under Item-14 of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5.The issue as to whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the said notification went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court by its order dated 20-1-1994 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4531 4532 of 1986 held that the mixture manufactured by the appellant does not satisfy all the conditions prescribed by the notification, and hence the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) by order dated 20-11-1998 as barred by limitation. Against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), which was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 26-4-2000. Aggrieved, the appellant filed, a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11-6-2001 by a learned single Judge, and hence this appeal. 11.In a long string of decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been repeatedly emphasized that disputes between the Central Government and the Public Sector Undertakings should first go before the High Powered Committee constituted by the Central Government, so as to conciliate the matter. Reference to these rulings have all been given in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes [2004 (168) E.L.T. 147 (S.C.) = AIR 2004 SC 2434]. 12.In Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Jeesop and Co. Ltd. [1999 (107) E.L.T. 581 (S.C.) = 1999 (9) SCC 181], reference to which has been made in the decision in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try, the Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. The Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior Officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline." Thus, the High Powered Committee constituted in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court was in the nature of in-house conciliation to avoid litigation between the Government and the Public Sector Undertakings. All Public Sector Undertakings hence have to necessarily approach the High Powered Committee before filing any appeal/case. 14.Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Central Government, submitted that the appellant should have filed an appeal while simultan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) could condone the delay by a further period of 90 days. Thus, the appeal could have been preferred within 180 days. Although the appeal was filed after the period of 261 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order, the time taken to approach the High Powered Committee and obtain its order/permission was 92 days. If this period of 92 days is excluded, the appeal has been filed after 169 days, which is well within the total period of 180 days. 17.We agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. At the relevant time, the prescribed period for filing appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was 90 days from the date of receipt of the order, and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) could condone the delay by further period of 90 days. Since the appellant had necessarily to approach the High Powered Committee (in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above) in our opinion the period spent in pursuing the matter before the High Powered Committee has necessarily to be excluded. 18.On the facts of the case, and sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
