2013 (10) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eing Excise Appeal No. E/A/703/2010 as also the application of SAIL for dispensation of pre-deposit being Stay Petition No. E/S/884/2010. 2. Being aggrieved by an order of adjudication dated August 10, 2010 whereby the adjudicating authority confirmed excise duty demand of Rs. 78,97,686/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 4,84,83,657/-, SAIL preferred the said Appeal No. E/A/703/2010 before the 'CESTAT'. SAIL also filed the application being E/S/884/2010 praying for dispensation of the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed duty and penalty. 3. The said application, taken up for hearing on September 19, 2012, was dismissed along with the appeal, on the purported ground that SAIL had not produced the requisite COD (Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, called a High-Powered Committee (HPC), later on called as "Committee of Secretaries" (CoS) and finally termed as "Committee on Disputes" (CoD) was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved, by an empowered CoD. The machinery contemplated was only to ensure that no litigation comes to Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house committee. [see para 3 of the order dated 7-1-1994 (supra) Whilst the principle and the object behind the aforestated Orders is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (ii) (2004) 6 SCC 437, dated 7-1-1994 [1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.)] (iii) (2007) 7 SCC 39, dated 20-7-2007 [2009 (233) E.L.T. 30 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 482 (S.C.)] (iv) For the aforestated reasons, I.A. No. 4 filed by the assessee in Civil Appeal No. 1903/2008 is dismissed". 6. The orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which required CoD clearance having been recalled, the learned Tribunal patently erred in dismissing the said application and the appeal on the purported ground that SAIL had not produced evidence of having applied for clearance from the CoD or on the ground that SAIL had not produced any clearance from the CoD. 7. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Murthy v. State ....