9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als filed by the Revenue on the ground that COD approval was not obtained for prosecuting the appeals before this Tribunal. According to the ld. Representative, the Apex Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd held that for prosecuting the appeal by the Department against the public sector undertaking, a clearance from the COD is a mandatory condition. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. However, suddenly, after expiry of four years, an order was passed by this Tribunal on 18.4.2013 setting aside its earlier orders and restoring all the appeals on file without even issuing notice to the assessee. On a query from the Bench, whether the Revenue filed any application to recall the earlier orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court, there is no scope for the COD considering clearance for filing appeal between Public Sector Undertakings or between Government and Public Sector Undertakings. The COD rejected the Revenue's application for permission to file appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Kerala High Court found that once the COD rejected the claim of the Revenue for filing the appeal, the orders of the COD cannot be ignored. The Kerala High Court further found that the approval granted or declined by the COD could be gone into by the appellate court in any case pending or disposed of. The application of the Revenue to restore the appeal on the basis of the subsequent judgment was rejected by the Kerala High Court. Referring to the decision of Delhi Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for prosecuting the appeals as per the direction of the Apex Court. The Apex Court subsequently found that COD clearance is not required for filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal found that its earlier orders dismissing the appeals need to be recalled. Accordingly, the orders were recalled. On a query from the Bench whether the Revenue has filed any application for recall of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, the ld. DR fairly submitted that he is not aware of any application filed by the Revenue. The fact remains that the Tribunal recalled its orders. On a query from the Bench how the Tribunal can recall its orders after expiry of four years, especially without issuing notice, the ld. DR submitted that on identical set of facts, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als on file. We find from the records that the Revenue filed applications on 15.1.2013 praying for the recall of the Tribunal orders on the ground that COD clearance is no longer required in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Electronics Corporation of India vs UOI (Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011). After receiving the applications from the Revenue the same was not numbered and even taken on file. The Tribunal suddenly passed an order dated 18.4.2013 recalling all the earlier orders on its own. The immediate provocation of the Tribunal may be the applications filed by the Revenue to recall its earlier orders. Whatever may be the reason, four years period as provided u/s 254(2) for rectification has expired even on the date of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
