TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....When this matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. There is a request for adjournment from the accountant of the appellants. 2. On a perusal of the record, we find that the appellant is government of India undertaking, which is indicated on the letter head. If that is so, they are supposed to file clearance certificate from the Committee on Disputes. In the absence of any such certificate, we are unable to take up the appeal for disposal. The appeal is dismissed for non-production of certificate from the Committee on Disputes. At the same time, liberty is granted to make an application for restoration as and when they get certificate from the Committee on Disputes." 3. Petitioner is a government company as defined under Section 615 of the Companies Act, 1956. A claim of its supplier M/s International Conveyers Limited for refund of excess amount of excise duty for the period 22.04.1987 to 31.03.1994 was rejected by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Division vide order dated 08.01.1996 for the reason that the duty has been passed on to the buyer. Its appeal was also rejected on 21.03.1996 on the ground that claim for refund c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the COD. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited, New Delhi Vrs. Commercial of Central Excise & Services Tax, Ranchi in Tax Appeal No. 29 of 2013 dated 10.12.2020 and submitted that in more or less similar circumstances the order passed by the learned CESTAT dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant therein, only on the ground that permission had not been taken from the COD at the time of filing of appeal and till its disposal, was held to be not justified in law. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) and Northern Coalfields Limited (supra). It is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside so that petitioner may have the liberty to approach the learned CESTAT for restoration of the appeal and hearing on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent department has submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal was dismissed both on account of non- appearance of the appellant and on failure to produce the clearance certificate from the COD. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the above can be summarized as under: 23.1. The Permanent Machinery of Arbitration was put in place as early as in March, 1989, even before ONGC-2 was decided on 11- 10-1991. 23.2. The Permanent Machinery of Arbitration was outside the statutory provision then regulating arbitrations in this country, namely, the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940). 23.3. The award made in terms of the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration being outside the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 would not constitute an award under the said legislation and would therefore neither be amenable to be set aside under the said statute nor be made a rule of the court to be enforceable as a decree lawfully passed against the judgment-debtor. 23.4. The Committee on Disputes set up under the orders of this Court in the series of orders passed in ONGC cases did not prevent filing of a suit or proceedings by one PSE/PSU against another or by one government department against another. The only restriction was that even when such suit or proceedings were instituted the same shall not be proceeded with till such time the Committee on Disputes granted permission to the party approaching the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s vitiated on the face of record hence liable to be set aside. That such a suit could be filed but could not be proceeded with till such time the CoD granted permission is also beyond dispute as on the date of the institution of the suit the direction of this Court in ONGC group of cases still held the field. Such permission could be obtained within 30 days which was not sacrosanct but the institution of the suit itself could not be faulted as a litigant was in terms of the direction of this Court entitled to institute the proceedings to save limitation. The High Court has, all the same, rejected the plaint on the ground that permission from CoD was not obtained. In doing so the High Court obviously understood the direction of this Court to mean as though absence of such permission was a fatal defect which it was not. The orders of this Court to which we have made a reference earlier unequivocally make it clear that filing of the suit in itself was not barred. What was restrained was further progress in the suit till such time permission from the CoD was obtained. Inasmuch as the High Court considered the absence of permission from CoD to be a mandatory legal requirement for the in....