9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merit but on the technicality that the appellant did not produce the clearance from CoD nor produce any document that the application seeking clearance is pending. The petitioner relies upon an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in WP No. 1009 of 2012 where the similar and identical point was raised and the coordinate bench held: "By an order dated September 11, 1991 which is reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 (ONGC & Anr.-V-CCE), the Supreme Court observed that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court. Thereafter an order dated 11.10.1991 followed, directing the Government of India to set up a committee to monitor such disputes. Pursuant to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexceptionable and laudatory, 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. We have already given two examples hereinabove. They indicate that on same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to Institute a SLP in this Curt 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 Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the CoD. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A.Murthy vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 a decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases, irrespective of stage of pendency thereof because it is assumed that what is enunciated 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. Maity, 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 applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
