https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239438 The appeal seeking restoration, initially dismissed for lack of COD clearance, was the subject of dispute. Despite repeated rejections by the COD, the applicants pursued reconsideration. The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions and ultimately remitted it back to decide in line with a High Court ruling. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ECIL case decision was contested for its applicability, particularly as the COD had already made its decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, clarifying that COD permission was not required for cases filed before a specific date and not pending with COD at that time. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239438 The appeal seeking restoration, initially dismissed for lack of COD clearance, was the subject of dispute. Despite repeated rejections by the COD, the applicants pursued reconsideration. The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions and ultimately remitted it back to decide in line with a High Court ruling. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ECIL case decision was contested for its applicability, particularly as the COD had already made its decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, clarifying that COD permission was not required for cases filed before a specific date and not pending with COD at that time. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239438