Appellant's appeal restoration bid denied due to lack of COD permission, review app not equivalent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's misc. application seeking restoration of the appeal, which was initially dismissed for lack of COD permission. The appellant relied on a judgment stating that COD permission was no longer required, while the Revenue argued that a review application could not be considered as an application pending before the COD. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, holding that the pendency of a review application did not equate to seeking COD permission. Consequently, the appellant's application for restoration was dismissed based on the interpretation of the law in line with precedent.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of COD permission.
2. Applicability of judgment in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India-2011.
3. Interpretation of the principle of law laid down in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.E., Kolkata 2012(286) ELT (Tri-LB)-II.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a misc. application seeking restoration of the appeal dismissed by the Tribunal for want of COD permission. The appellant had initially filed the appeal against an order in original dated 31/03/2008. The Committee of Disputes (COD) dismissed their application seeking permission to pursue the appeal. The appellant argued that a review application was filed before the judgment in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India-2011, which stated that COD permission was no longer required. The appellant sought restoration based on this judgment.

2. The Revenue's representative contended that after the judgment in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.E., Kolkata 2012, it was established that the pendency of a review application could not be considered as an application pending before the COD for seeking permission. The Revenue argued that the appellant's application for restoration lacked merit based on this interpretation of the law.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, agreed with the Revenue's argument. Referring to Burn Standard's case, the Tribunal held that even if a review application was pending before the COD, it could not be considered as an application seeking permission from the COD. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's misc. application and consequently dismissed it based on the interpretation of the law as per the precedent set by Burn Standard's case and the relevant legal opinions considered.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and precedents.

---