TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No. 124/2006, raising the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether respondent No. 1 was bound to restore the Appeal No. 124 of 2006 on its original number in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others, (2001) 3 SCC 404 and hear the appeal on merit ? (ii) Whether the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by Committee on Disputes (COD) amounts to denial of promotion (sick permission) to file appeal ? (iii) Whether after passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others (supra), order dated 2.11.2006 automatically extinguished ? (iv) Whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period in question is from October, 2002 to September, 2003. The Order-in-Original was challenged before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.10.2006, the Tribunal noticing the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC), opined that as requisite permission from the Committee on Disputes had not been obtained, the parties were relegated to the Committee on Disputes with liberty to the appellant to get the appeal restored after clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The application filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal after the decision was taken by the Committee on Disputes on 2.11.2006 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.3.2008 noticing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong account. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the circular dated 24.3.2011 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, submitted that once the matter had been referred to the Committee on Disputes and that Committee having not granted permission, the application for restoration of the appeal was not maintainable. In the case in hand, the Committee on Disputes had directed the parties to sit across the table and settle the dispute, hence, the application for restoration was rightly dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. It is a case in which the appellant is being deprived of hearing of its appeal on merits only for the reason that initiall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission's case (supra) was not to curtail the right of the parties, but was to shorten the litigation. The circular dated 24.3.2011, issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs, also cannot take away the statutory right of appeal. 8. Recently, the issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Northern Coalfield Ltd. v. Heavy Engineering Corp. Ltd. and another, 2016(6) SCALE 820. In the aforesaid judgment, office memorandum dated 12.6.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises revising the guidelines on the issue was referred to. The net effect thereof was summed up in para No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vi) The Committee on Disputes was required to grant permission for instituting or pursing the proceedings. If the High Power Committee (COD) was unable to resolve the dispute for reasons to be recorded by it, it was required to grant clearance for litigation. (vii) The Committee on Disputes experience was found to be unsatisfactory and the directives issued by the Court regarding its constitution and matters incidental thereto were recalled by the Constitution Bench of this Court thereby removing the impediment which was placed upon the Court's/Tribunal's powers to proceed with the suit/ legal proceedings. The Department of Public Enterprises has subsequent to the recall of the orders in the ONGC line of cases modified its ....