9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generating units in the State of Karnataka. As against the rejection of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 25.09.2004. On the first hearing date, i.e., on 12.1.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding as follows: "The assessee being an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, clearance from the Committee on Disputes is required to pursue the appeal. No clearance is on record and the appeal is an old one. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of COD clearance with liberty to the assessee to apply for restoration in the event of clearance being granted." 2. Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommittee on Disputes and at the time of disposal of their appeal the law was prevailing and their appeal was dismissed for want of COD clearance with the liberty to the appellant to file for restoration in the event of clearance being granted. Admittedly, no clearance was produced by the appellant and when this dismissal order of their appeal was passed the decision of ONGC case was in operation. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the application for restoration of the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed." 4. Challenging the above-said decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether the CESTAT was right in dismissing the restoration application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arashtra Ltd. case) this Court extended the concept of dispute resolution by High-Powered Committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving State Government and their instrumentalities. The appeal in this case was filed on 25.09.2004 and therefore, prima facie the appellant is justified in saying that there was no requirement for clearance by the High Powered Committee. The Tribunal was at error in dismissing the appeal at the first instance. Even otherwise, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Vs. UOI, reported in [2011] 30 STT 472 (SC), the restoration application has been filed on 30.5.2011. The law as it stands on and after 17.2.2011 is that there is no requirement of getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r obtaining clearance. As on the date of the judgment of ECIL, i.e. 17-2-2011, the petitioner has neither obtained COD clearance, nor produced evidence showing that it had approached COD for obtaining clearance. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had applied for COD clearance only on 4-9-2012 just ten days prior to taking up of its appeal. Having not been vigilant in either applying or obtaining COD clearance, the petitioner cannot take advantage of ECIL judgment." 9. We find that the above-said decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not apply to the facts of the present case. As we have already held, when the restoration application was filed on 30.5.2011 by the appellant, the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
