9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al being CEXA No. 23 of 2013 filed by the present appellant, which was in turn filed, challenging the order dated 26th April 2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "CESTAT"), dismissing the application filed by the present appellant seeking rectification of the order dated 30th October 2012 passed by the CESTAT. The application was filed on the ground that while passing the order dated 30th October 2012, the CESTAT did not notice the fact that the application filed by the present appellant was pending before the Committee of Disputes (for short "CoD"). 2. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking (for short "PSU") of the Government of India. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and Others (2011) 3 SCC 404, held that the mechanism which was sought to be invoked for getting approval from the CoD, has outlived its utility. This Court, therefore, recalled the directions issued in the earlier orders recorded in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Another v. Collector of Central Excise 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 dated 11.10.1991, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise (2004) 6 SCC 437 dated 07.01.1994 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. City & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Limited and Others (2007) 7 SCC 39 dated 20.07.2007. 8. The appellant, thereafter, moved a miscellaneous application being Misc. Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. 12. We find that the facts of the present case are peculiar. The second application was filed before the CoD on 11th February 2011. In the meantime, the judgment of this Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) was delivered on 17th February 2011, which has done away with the mechanism seeking permission of CoD. As such, the second application of the appellant could not be considered by the CoD. The question of interest, therefore, has not been addressed by any of the authorities. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed on the above terms. The impugned order dated 12th November 2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CEXA No. 23 of 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
