TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant Tribunal have not dismissed the said application on merit but on a technicality that the appellant did not produce the clearance from CoD nor produce any document that the application seeking clearance is pending. The petitioner relies upon an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in W.P. No. 1009 of 2012 wherein the similar and identical point was raised and the coordinate Bench recorded the following : "By an order dated September 11, 1991 which is reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 (ONGC & Anr. v. CCE), the Supreme Court observed that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court. Thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. We have already given two examples hereinabove. They indicate that on same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to Institute a SLP in this Curt on the ground of discrimination. We need not multiply such illustrations. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving 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. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Murthy vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 a decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases, irrespective of stage of pendency thereof because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from the inception unless, of course, the Supreme Court expressly indicates that the decision would have prospective effect. May be, as....