Court upholds CESTAT decisions due to failure to comply with COD clearance requirements

The court upheld the decisions of the CESTAT to dismiss the appeal and restoration application due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the Committee On Disputes (COD) clearance requirements. The court found that the petitioner did not obtain or apply for COD clearance within the stipulated timeframe, as mandated by earlier Supreme Court directions. The judgment in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. regarding the abolition of COD clearance did not retroactively apply to cases where clearance was not obtained within the specified period. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Misc. Order No.M-126/Kol/2013 dated 26.4.2013/1.5.2013 by CESTAT.
2. Quashing of the order dated 18.9.2012 in Excise Appeal No.532/2009 by CESTAT.
3. Requirement and implications of Committee On Disputes (COD) clearance.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of Misc. Order No.M-126/Kol/2013 dated 26.4.2013/1.5.2013 by CESTAT
The petitioner sought to quash the Misc. Order No.M-126/Kol/2013, whereby CESTAT dismissed the application for restoration of Excise Appeal No.532/2009. The Tribunal dismissed the restoration application because the petitioner failed to produce either the permission from COD or any proof that the application had been pending before COD as on 17.2.2011. The Tribunal relied on its decision in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. CCE, which stated that COD clearance was mandatory for proceeding with the appeal.

Issue 2: Quashing of the order dated 18.9.2012 in Excise Appeal No.532/2009 by CESTAT
The petitioner also sought to quash the order dated 18.9.2012, where CESTAT dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner did not produce clearance from COD nor any evidence that an application for clearance was pending on 17.2.2011. The appeal was initially filed on 14.10.2009, and the requirement for COD clearance was in effect at that time. The petitioner applied for COD clearance only on 4.9.2012, which was significantly delayed and not in compliance with the stipulated timeframe.

Issue 3: Requirement and implications of Committee On Disputes (COD) clearance
The COD was established following the Supreme Court's direction in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise to prevent inter se litigation between government departments and public sector undertakings. The Supreme Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Union of India abolished the requirement for COD clearance, stating that the mechanism had outlived its utility and caused delays. However, the petitioner's appeal was filed before this judgment, and thus, the COD clearance requirement was applicable at the time of filing.

Analysis of Contentions:
- The petitioner contended that the requirement for COD clearance was scrapped by the Supreme Court in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd., and therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed for want of COD clearance.
- The respondent argued that the petitioner neither obtained COD clearance nor applied for it within the required timeframe. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal and restoration application was justified due to non-compliance with the COD clearance requirement as per the Supreme Court's earlier directions.

Court's Findings:
- The court noted that the petitioner filed the appeal in 2009, and as per the Supreme Court's directions in Oil & Natural Gas Commission, the petitioner should have approached COD for clearance within one month of filing the appeal. The petitioner failed to do so and only applied for COD clearance in 2012.
- The judgment in Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. did not retroactively apply to cases where COD clearance was not obtained or applied for within the stipulated time before the judgment date.
- The Tribunal's reliance on Burn Standard Co. Ltd. was appropriate as the petitioner's case did not differ materially from Burn Standard Co. Ltd., where the COD clearance was also a crucial factor.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the orders dated 18.9.2012 and 26.4.2013/1.5.2013 by CESTAT did not suffer from any error of law warranting interference. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decisions based on the non-compliance with COD clearance requirements.

---