TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct thereof. CoD mechanism was put in place by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, before CESTAT, the petitioner herein, was granted leave to apply for restoration upon obtaining CoD clearance. Since the CoD mechanism was done away with, CESTAT ought to have taken such fact into consideration when the petitioner approached it. The impugned order does not look into the problem in such aspect. It proceeds to find that, the appellant continues to suffer from the lack of grant of clearance by COD. The right to prefer the appeal revive been done away, CESTAT ought to consider and decide such appeal on merits. Petition allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not required to prefer the appeal the second time. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon 2013 (293) E.L.T. 510 (Cal.) [Steel Authority of India Ltd.-Versus-CESTAT, Kolkata], 2014 (302) E.L.T. 348 (Cal.) [Steel Authority of India Ltd.-Versus-Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur], 2017 (47) S.T.R.3 (Punjab Haryana) [General Manager, Telecom District- Versus-CESTAT] and submits that, in similar circumstances, the appeal was directed to be considered. He also relies upon 2003 (7) Supreme Court Cases 517 (M.A.Murthy-Versus- State of Karnataka Ors.). Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, there is no error apparent on the face of the order impugned, requiring interference by the Writ Court. There is no perve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted permission to the petitioner to prefer an appeal from the order in original dated December 29, 1992. The petitioner did so. The appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by an order dated January 16, 2006 passed by the appellate authority setting aside the order in original and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. On remand, the adjudicating authority by its order dated January 4, 2008 confirmed the demand made and imposed a penalty. According to the petitioner, the order in original dated January 4, 2008 did not take into consideration, the directions passed by the appellate authority, in its order dated January 16, 2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order in original dated January 4, 2008, which was dealt wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal would revive upon CoD granting the clearance in respect thereof. CoD mechanism was put in place by various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in respect of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Such mechanism was put in place by the Hon ble Supreme Court finding that, Article 12 authorities were the largest litigants and that, the CoD system may lesson the number of litigation. However, the Supreme Court, subsequently finding that, such a mechanism has failed, recalled the CoD mechanism by the decision rendered in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.(supra). Therefore, after Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.(supra), an appeal by an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution need not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
