TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the judgment and/or order of the Single Bench of this Court dated 3rd January, 2013 in W.P. No. 1009 of 2012 (Steel Authority of India Limited v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zone), which was not interfered with or set aside by any higher forum. - Tribunal directed to dispose of the appeal/stay application as expeditiously as possible - Decided in favor of assessee. - G.A. No. 1729 of 2013 and CEXA No. 11 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-7-2013 - Indira Banerjee and Anindita Roy Saraswati, JJ. Dr. Samir Chakraborty and Shri Abhijit Biswas, for the Appellant. Shri Pradip Kr. Roy and K.K. Maity, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Indira Banerjee, J.]. - This appeal is against Order N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also disputes between such undertakings and the Union of India. Pursuant to the aforesaid order a Committee was constituted. The Committee was initially called the High-Powered Committee (HPC). The committee was later called Committee of Secretaries (COS). 5. In the ONGC-III case, which is reported in (2007) 7 SCC 39 = 2007 (215) E.L.T. 166 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court directed that in the absence of clearance from CoS any legal proceedings between different Central Government and undertakings or between such public sector undertakings and the Union of India, should not be proceeded with. A further order dated 20th July, 2007 was passed in the fourth ONGC case, extending the concept of dispute resolution by High-Powered Committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his has led a PSU to Institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. We need not multiply such illustrations. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However; the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, while the same is denied by the Revenue Department. Similarly, with the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there could be overlapping of jurisdictions between, let us say, SEBI and Insurance regulators, Civil appeals lie to this Court. Stakes in such cases are huge. One cannot possibly expect timely clearance by CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nunciated by the Supreme Court, is in fact, the law from the inception unless, of course, the Supreme Court expressly indicates that the decision would have prospective effect. May be, as contended by Mr. Roy, the appeal was filed before 17th February, 2011 when the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court recalling the earlier orders was pronounced. The orders whereby clearance was required having been recalled, the appeal and the stay application could not have been dismissed on the ground of want of clearance or want of an application for clearance. 9. The appeal has been dismissed on the sole ground that it had been filed without obtaining permission from the Committee of Disputes. The short question of law involved in this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed (supra) but had still been pending. 13. A judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. Words in a judgment cannot be read out of context and construed in isolation. In Air India Limited (supra) the learned Tribunal had dismissed the appeal just one day after the decision of the Supreme Court possibly without knowledge of the order of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal had rectified its mistake by reviving the appeal by its order dated 30th April, 2012 impugned before the Division Bench. 14. By an order dated 3rd January, 2013 in WP No. 1009 of 2012 [2013 (293) E.L.T. 510 (Cal.)], in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court requiring such permission have been recalled by the order dated 17th February, 2011. 16. In other words, on or from 17th February, 2011 onwards there was no existence of those orders and hence no question of dismissal of any pending appeal on the ground of want of permission of Committee of Disputes. 17. The impugned order of the learned Tribunal may have been passed on 22nd April, 2013, four days before the Division Bench delivered its judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Siliguri, Commissionerate. The learned Tribunal ought, to have appreciated that its Larger Bench judgment in the case of Burn Standard could no longer be good law in view of the judgment and/or order of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
