TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the petitioner must first approach for settlement of its disputes before the Committee constituted by the Apex Court, however, a liberty was granted to revive the appeal as and when such clearance is obtained. 2. As it reveals from the record, the adjudicating authority, after hearing counsel for the parties, passed the order dated 21-2-2006 (Anx. 1) directing ad infra : - (i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 1,24,489/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Nine only) and Education Cess of ₹ 1,656/- (Rs. One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Six Only) under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) I impose penalty of ₹ 1,26,145/- (Rs. One Lac Twenty Six Thousan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommittee has been set aside by the Apex Court in its later judgment rendered in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India Ors., reported in 2011 (3) SCC 404 = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 593 (S.C.) = 2011 (265) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), still, the Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner failed to approach the CoD under directions of the Tribunal, at least, such indulgence cannot now be granted to the petitioner for affording opportunity of hearing to be heard on merits. 5. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once the Apex Court has finally observed in the judgment, referred to supra holding that in the changed scenario, it will not be equitable to allow the Committee to continue and accordingly its con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court ad infra : - 10. The above two instances are given only to highlight the fact that the mechanism set up by this Court in its orders reported in (i) Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (ONGC-II), dated 11-10-1991, (ii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (ONGC-III), dated 7-1-1994, and (iii) Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. City Industrial Development Corpn. Maharashtra Ltd. (ONGC-IV), dated 20-7-2007 needs to be revisited. 16. Whilst the principle and the object behind the aforesaid orders is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstituted with the concept of dispute resolution by the High-Powered Committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving the State Governments and their instrumentalities and the basic idea behind it was that the setting up of the CoD to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between the entities of the State but by passage of time, it resulted in generation of of more and more litigation and the mechanism, which was introduced by the Apex Court, outlived its utility. 10. It is true that at the stage when the order was passed by the Tribunal dated 10-7-2007, the petitioner was supposed to approach the CoD constituted under orders of the Apex Court but it was not at all functional and as notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
