TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order-in-Original No. 52/Denovo/Commissioner/CE/KOL-II/Adjn/2007-08 dated 4-1-2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II. Necessary permission was thereafter sought by the Appellant from COD to pursue the Appeal before this Tribunal. The same was rejected by COD on 19-2-2009. They filed another Application for re-consideration of the said rejection Order; however the said request was also rejected on 2-4-2009. Another Application was made on 8-5-2009 for reconsideration of the decision dated 19-2-2009 & 2-4-2009, which is claimed as pending before the COD for decision. Now, the Applicant/Appellant has come across the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL) v. Union ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been taken on the same till 17-2-2011, shall be continued to be covered by the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the COD permission is not required in those cases. He further submits that in the instant case, the request of the Applicant for COD permission was rejected on 19-2-2009 and reconsideration of the said decision was turned down on 2-4-2009 and there was no procedure for filing applications for re-consideration again and again before the COD. Hence, the Application filed by the Applicant/Appellant before the COD on 8-5-2009 is of no significance in the eyes of law. Since their COD Application is not pending as on 17-2-2011, the Application is not maintainable in view of the Circular issued by the Board. Furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovt. Organs in the past. Therefore, such a mechanism be dispensed with in future, being outdated and obsolete. But, the said observation cannot be understood to allow reopening the cases already closed at various levels due to rejection of COD permissions between 1993 and 2011. Such an interpretation will lead to an absurd result, hence ought to be avoided. 4. Considering the importance of the legal issue and its ramification, the Bench has suggested the members of the Bar present to make their submissions on the said issue. 5. Shri Ravi Raghavan, learned Advocate has submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT in ONGC's case, all cases whether it is pending decision before COD as on 17-2-2011, or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restore the Appeals rejected on the ground of COD permission. 7. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri J.P. Khaitan submits that all the cases pending clearance before the COD as on the date of Order, have been covered by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the ECIL' case. But the cases already rejected by the COD in the past, cannot be reopened. 8. After hearing both sides and the Bar at length, we find that the issue involved is of greater public importance. We find force in the argument of the learned AR (Commissioner) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ECIL's case (supra) has observed that the mechanism of obtaining COD permission has outlived its utility. This observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in our opinion, indicat....