9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bihari Agrawal, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President (Oral)]. - This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench consequent to the order passed in Appeal No. E/165/2008 titled Burn Standard v. CCE, Kolkata dated 12-1-2012 [2012 (280) E.L.T. 420 (Tri. - Kolkata)]. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :- "8. After hearing both sides and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the Revenue's plea and restored the Appeal where permission to litigate was rejected by COD earlier i.e. before 17-2-2011. They observed at para 6 as follows :- "6. Referring to the said para, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent-assessee that the circular nowhere states that the decision of the Apex Court would apply retrospectively. Once the law has been clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following question of law before the Hon'ble President to refer the matter to a Larger Bench to resolve the same :- "Whether in view of the ECIL's judgment (supra), instances where COD permission was not allowed in the past i.e. before 17-2-2011 to pursue the litigation before CESTAT, be treated as not relevant, and such Appeals either rejected or pending rejection by Tribunal for want of COD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In the present case, in fact, the Revenue had sought permission, but the same was declined in November, 2009. The said decision was accepted by the Revenue. We do not think that Electronics Corp. of India (supra) can apply to the facts of the present case as the request for permission to file appellate proceedings was declined by the Committee of Disputes. The decision taken by the Committee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
