- (1.) Subject, matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 16th November, 2012, a copy whereof is Annexure-D to the Stay Petition. By the Impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that clearance from committee of disputes was not taken by the appellant. The appeal was admittedly filed on 13th May, 2010. The Supreme Court by a judgment and order dated 6th April, 2010 in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2010 253 ELT 355 (SC) opined that the committee of disputes had failed to yield the desired effect, and therefore, the order constituting such committees passed in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1994 70 ELT 45 required reconsideration. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate direction. Pursuant to such order, a Constitution Bench was constituted which ultimately decided the matter in issue on 17th February, 2011 holding as follows: The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, while the same is denied by the Revenue Department. Similarly, with the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there could be overlapping of jurisdictions between, let us say, SEBI and insurance regulators. Civil appeals lie to this Court, Sakes in such cases are huge. One cannot possibly expect timely clearance by the Committee on Disputes. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may result in generation of more and more litigation. The mechanism has outlived its utility. In the changed scenario indicated above, we are of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various orders reported as (i) ONGC v. CCE, 2004 6 SCC 437 dated October 11, 1991; (ii) ONGC v. CCE, 2004 6 SCC 437 dated January 7, 1994; and (iii) ONGC v. City and Industrial Development Corporation, 2007 7 SCC 39 dated July 20, 2007. In the circumstances, we hereby recall the following orders reported in: (i) ONGC v. CCE, 2004 6 SCC 437 dated October 11, 1991; (ii) ONGC v. CCE,6 SCC 437 dated January 7, 1994; and (iii) ONGC v. City and Industrial Development Corporation, 2007 7 SCC 39 dated July 20, 2007. Therefore, on 16th November, 2012 when the Tribunal applied its mind to the appeal, the order in the case of ONGC constituting the committee of disputes was no longer operative. This subsequent event, should have been taken note of by the learned Tribunal to shorten the matter rather than relying on a technicality for the purpose of dismissing the appeal by holding that the order in ONGC was valid on 13th May, 2010 when the appeal was filed.
(2.) We are inclined to set aside the order under challenge. The appeal succeeds. The order under challenge it set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merit.;