2011 (2) TMI 3 - SC - Central Excise

COD Clearance The idea behind setting up of this Committee initially called a High-Powered 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 in-house committee. Experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. - Orders reported as (i) OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION Versus CCE (1991 - TMI - 43289 - SUPREME COURT) (ii) (1994 -TMI - 43712 - SUPREME COURT) and (iii) (Oil recalled.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of entitlement to avail/utilize Modvat/Cenvat Credit on inputs whose values stood written off.
2. Revisiting the mechanism for resolving disputes between the Government and Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) set by previous court orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a Central Government PSU was entitled to avail/utilize Modvat/Cenvat Credit on inputs whose values stood written off. The dispute arose when show cause notices were issued to the PSU by the Central Government alleging that the Corporation was not entitled to such credit. The PSU argued that the write-off was a financial requirement as prescribed in AS-2 and that the inputs, though written off in value, were still useful for production. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this argument and confirmed the demand against the PSU. The PSU then challenged this decision by filing an appeal before CESTAT and later moved to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading the PSU to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented and made a decision based on the legal principles involved.

Issue 2:
In a related matter, the Court also examined the mechanism set up by previous court orders to resolve disputes between the Government and PSUs. The Orders directed the establishment of a Committee to monitor and resolve disputes to prevent unnecessary litigation. The Attorney General argued that these Orders had outlived their utility due to delays and inconsistencies in decision-making, leading to more litigation. The Court agreed with the Attorney General's submission and decided to recall the previous Orders to address the changed scenario. The Court highlighted the need to ensure timely resolution of disputes and prevent unnecessary litigation between entities of the State. Consequently, the Court recalled the Orders and dismissed the application filed by the PSU in a civil appeal related to the dispute resolution mechanism.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the specific issue of Modvat/Cenvat Credit entitlement on written-off inputs by a PSU and the broader issue of revisiting the mechanism for resolving disputes between the Government and PSUs. The Court provided detailed analysis and reasoning for its decisions, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute resolution mechanisms to prevent delays and unnecessary litigation.