TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In spite of repeated queries by the Bench, the applicant could not submit any reason for delay of more than 10 years, after the COD clearance was given by the competent authority. Even considering that on 17.02.2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court recalled the earlier order and dispensed with the COD clearance mechanism, for another 6 years, the applicant did not take any action regarding the dismissal orders passed in 2006. Here again, no reasons were putforth for such attitude of the applicant. The matter, which are considered and decided by the Committee of Disputes and permission specifically denied, cannot be re-opened. As such, in the present case, two appeals cannot be even considered for recalling. On the third appeal, we note that 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant time in terms of guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs. CCE, Kolkata - 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC). It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the liberty has been granted to the applicant to apply for restoration of appeals on production of necessary clearance from the COD. Out of these three cases, the applicant got COD clearance in respect of Appeal No.E/1288/2006, on 18.12.2007. In respect of other two appeals, E/1352/06 and E/2756/06, such clearance was declined by the COD vide minutes of meetings dated 19.10.2006 and 2.11.2006 respectively. Following the dismissal of appeals, the applicant deposited the entire amount of credit along with penalties. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved and the applicant being a Public Sector Undertaking, the delay in filing ROA should not be the reason for dismissal. 4. Ld.AR strongly opposed the misc. applications. He submitted that the appeals were dismissed in 2006 for non-production of the required COD clearances. The requirement of COD clearance was validly insisted upon in 2006, in terms of the Apex Court s guidelines in ONGC case (supra). The said guidelines having the force of law were uniformly followed by the Tribunal. Though the said guidelines were recalled by the Apex Court in Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), it is clear that during the relevant period the same was very much in force. It is relevant that the Hon ble Supreme Court recorded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing for restoration, as the liberty was given to them. For more than 10 years no action was taken by the applicant. The Hon ble Supreme Court had done away with the mechanism of COD clearance vie their order dated 17.02.2011. Even from that date, for six years, the applicant did not take any action. Under these circumstances, ld.AR submitted that there is absolutely no ground to consider the present misc. applications for restoration of appeals, which were properly dismissed in 2006, in line with the law prevailing during the material time. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including the written submissions filed by the applicant. 6. The chronology of dates in respect of these three appeals, as submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is apparently no legal basis for such a proposition, which will be against the very basis of finality in judicial process. 7. It is relevant to note that the Hon ble Supreme Court specifically recorded that in ONGC IIIrd case, the Court directed that in absence of clearance from the Committee of Secretaries, any legal proceedings, will be not proceeded with. This was subject to the rider that the appeals and petitions filed without such clearance could be filed to save limitations. It was, however, directed that needful should be done within one month from such filing, failing which the matter would not be proceeded with. This was the applicable legal position during the period relevant to the present appeals. 8. As already no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay High Court in Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah - 2012 (282) ELT 217 (Bombay) held that the Tribunal is right in observing that in the absence of reasons for belated filing of the application, the same is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the Hon ble High Court upheld that the application filed beyond three months from the date of dismissal without, disclosing the cause for belated filing, is properly dismissed by the Tribunal. In Bharati Airtel Ltd. - 2014 (33) STR 524 (Tribunal-Chennai) , the Tribunal held that when the applicant did not provide any sufficient reason for long delay in filing the ROA application, the same is not sustainable. We also note that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. GAIL Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
