DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), East Regional Bench, passed in M.A. 366/11 dated September 17, 2012.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the CESTAT had erred in rejecting the application made by the petitioner to consider the appeal, in view of the fact that, the Committee on Disputes (CoD) put into place by orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was no longer in vogue by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2011 (265) ELT 11 (SC) [Electronics Corporation of India Ltd v. Union of India). Moreover, with the CoD system being done away with, CESTAT ought to have admitted the appeal of the petitioner considered the same, on merits. In any event, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner should be construed to have the necessary clearance from the CoD. The appeal carried against the first order in original was with the requisite permission of the CoD. The appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The order in original passed for the second time was a replica of the first order in original. Therefore, fresh permission from CoD was not required to prefer the appeal the second time.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon 2013 (293) E.L.T. 510 (Cal.) [Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CESTAT, Kolkata] , 2014 (302) E.L.T. 348 (Cal.) [Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bolpur] , 2017 (47) S.T.R.3 (Punjab and Haryana) [General Manager, Telecom District v. CESTAT] and submits that, in similar circumstances, the appeal was directed to be considered. He also relies upon 2003 (7) Supreme Court Cases 517 (M.A.Murthy v. State of Karnataka and Ors.) .;