https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243444 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. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:13:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243444 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243444