1994 (8) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal accepts Ministry letter as compliance despite lacking Committee clearance

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR

NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 607 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Whether the letter dated 6-8-1993 from the Ministry of Mines constitutes valid clearance from the Committee of Secretaries as per the Supreme Court's directions in ONGC v. CCE, Vadodara.2. Whether the Tribunal can proceed with the case based on the letter from the Ministry of Mines without a certified copy of the order from the Committee of Secretaries.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Letter from the Ministry of Mines as Clearance:The Tribunal had to determine if the letter dated 6-8-1993 from the Ministry of Mines constituted valid clearance from the Committee of Secretaries as required by the Supreme Court's directions in ONGC v. CCE, Vadodara. The letter conveyed the decision of the Committee of Secretaries allowing the appellant company to file an appeal before CEGAT against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar.The Tribunal noted that the letter, on a plain reading, did not explicitly state it was a clearance from the Committee of Secretaries. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a clear communication from the Committee of Secretaries as mandated by the Supreme Court, which required a clearance from the Committee to be placed before the Tribunal for proceeding with the matter.2. Requirement of Certified Copy of the Order from the Committee of Secretaries:The Tribunal examined whether the appellant needed to produce a certified copy of the order from the Committee of Secretaries or a certified copy of the letter issued by the delegate of the Cabinet Secretary. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's direction that every court and tribunal must demand a clearance from the Committee of Secretaries and, in its absence, should not proceed with the matter.The Tribunal found that the letter from the Ministry of Mines did not fulfill the Supreme Court's direction as it was not a direct communication from the Committee of Secretaries or its delegate. The Tribunal directed the appellants to produce such a communication before proceeding with the appeal.Separate Judgments:Member (T):The Member (T) held that the appellants must produce a communication from the delegate of the Cabinet Secretary giving clearance from the Committee of Secretaries. The Tribunal could not proceed with the matter based on the letter from the Ministry of Mines alone.Member (J):The Member (J) disagreed, stating that the letter from the Ministry of Mines was sufficient compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. The Member (J) emphasized that the purpose of the Committee of Secretaries was to ensure conciliation before litigation and that the letter indicated such clearance had been granted. The Member (J) argued that insisting on a certified copy would cause undue delay and hardship.Third Member:The Third Member noted that the issue had become academic since both parties admitted that the Committee of Secretaries had given clearance to pursue the appeal. The Third Member stated that the letter from the Ministry of Mines, read with the respondents' confirmation, was sufficient compliance for proceeding with the case.Final Order:In terms of the majority order, the Tribunal concluded that the letter dated 6-8-1993 from the Ministry of Mines was sufficient compliance for proceeding with the case. The case was to be listed for regular hearing by the Registry.