TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court], 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 clearance from the COD. The Tribunal had failed to note the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. - when the restoration application was filed on 30.5.2011 by the appellant, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1994 (1) TMI 88 - SUPRE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 suppl. (2) SCC 432 had outlived its utility and therefore, it had to be recalled. 3. It was pointed out by the appellant that the issue of getting clearance from the COD and their instrumentalities was brought in by an order dated 20.7.2007 in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise. Despite the fact that the decision in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Vs. UOI, reported in [2011] 30 STT 472 (SC) dispensed with the requirement of clearance from COD, it appears that the appellant had been pursuing the matter before the COD vide series of correspondences, viz., on 21.2.2011, 04.03.2011 and 27.04.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roval from the Committee on Disputes (COD) at the time of filing the appeal before it inC/338/2004 without appreciating the point that the Committee on Disputes system itself has been abolished by the Supreme Court in its judgment Electronics Corporation of India vs. UOI [2011] 30 STT 472 (SC). 2. Whether the CESTAT was right in not appreciating the fact that at the time of filing of the appeal by the appellant/petitioner herein in C/338/2004 that the approval from Committee on Disputes was not required at all as the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (1992 Supp (2) SCC 432) directed that only matters involving central government, its departments and PSUs of Central government required the approval of Committee on Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is erroneous. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the decision in the case of Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2014 (307) ELT 662 (Jhar.), wherein it was held as follows: 9. In the present case, challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner filed appeal before the CESTAT on 14-10-2009 [In ECIL case, the judgment was passed on 17-2-2011]. When the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, the directions in ONGC-II [1995 Supp(4)SCC 541 = 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) (11-10-1991) and ONGC-III (2004) 6 SCC 437 = 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)] (7-1-1994) were holding that field. In ONGC-II [1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 = 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- 4. It shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
