Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3611 OF 2015
M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR
...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
th
1. The appeal challenges the order dated 12 November
2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta, thereby dismissing the appeal being CEXA No. 23
of 2013 filed by the present appellant, which was in turn
th
filed, challenging the order dated 26 April 2013 passed by
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
East Regional Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the
“CESTAT”), dismissing the application filed by the present
th
appellant seeking rectification of the order dated 30 October
2012 passed by the CESTAT. The application was filed on
th
the ground that while passing the order dated 30 October
1
2012, the CESTAT did not notice the fact that the application
filed by the present appellant was pending before the
Committee of Disputes (for short “CoD”).
The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking (for
2.
short “PSU”) of the Government of India. The appellant was
th
served with a Show Cause Notice dated 4 August 2005 by
the office of Commissioner of Central Excise by invoking the
extended period of limitation and proposing to demand duty
of Rs.15.66 crore in respect of the clearances made during
the period from July 2000 to December 2004.
3. As per the relevant procedure, the appellant, being a
PSU, was required to obtain the clearance from the CoD
before taking legal action against other PSUs or Departments
of the Government. The CoD, in its Minutes of Meeting dated
nd
2 November 2006, granted permission to the Company to
pursue the appeal only on penalty aspect. As regards, the
duty aspect, the CoD held that in the CENVAT Regime, the
dispute was revenue neutral.
4. In pursuance of the permission granted, the
appellant filed an appeal being Appeal No. Ex.396/2006,
2
before the CESTAT. After hearing, the appeal was allowed by
th
the CESTAT setting aside the penalty vide order dated 11
June, 2007.
It is the contention of the appellant that in the
5.
meanwhile, the authorities issued a series of letters directing
the appellant to deposit the duty amount. As such, the
appellant deposited the duty demand of Rs.15.66 crore under
protest.
th
The appellant, thereafter on 11 February 2011,
6.
filed a fresh application before the CoD, requesting for
permission to pursue the abovesaid appeal with respect to
duty aspect before the CESTAT.
7. This Court, subsequently, vide its judgment dated
th
17 February, 2011 in the case of Electronics Corporation
1
, held that
of India Limited v. Union of India and Others
the mechanism which was sought to be invoked for getting
approval from the CoD, has outlived its utility. This Court,
therefore, recalled the directions issued in the earlier orders
recorded in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission
1
(2011) 3 SCC 404
3
2
and Another v. Collector of Central Excise , Oil and
3
Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise
and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. City &
Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra
4
Limited and Others .
8. The appellant, thereafter, moved a miscellaneous
application being Misc. Application No. MA(ROA) 507/2011
for restoration of the appeal being Appeal No. Ex.396/2006,
th
which was dismissed by the CESTAT vide its order dated 11
June 2007. Vide the said order, the CESTAT had maintained
the appeal with regard to the penalty aspect and dismissed
the appeal with regard to duty demand as nonmaintainable
for want of clearance from the CoD. The restoration
th
application was dismissed by CESTAT on 30 October, 2012.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.
The High Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the
appeal.
9. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Arijit
2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 dated 11.10.1991
3 (2004) 6 SCC 437 dated 07.01.1994
4
(2007) 7 SCC 39 dated 20.07.2007
4
Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent.
10. Shri Sridharan submitted that the question whether
the appellant was liable to pay interest on the duty or not,
has not been considered by any authority. He submitted
nd
that the CoD, vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 2 November
2006, had granted liberty only to challenge the penalty
aspect. However, subsequently on demand made by the
authorities, the appellant had deposited an amount of
Rs.15.66 crore. Therefore, the question as to whether the
appellant was liable to pay interest on the duty is to be
considered.
11. Shri Prasad, on the contrary, submitted that the
appellant had applied for refund and the said claim has been
rejected, which has attained finality. He, therefore, submitted
that the appellant cannot be permitted to reopen the said
issue.
12. We find that the facts of the present case are
peculiar. The second application was filed before the CoD on
th
11 February 2011. In the meantime, the judgment of this
5
Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India
th
(supra) was delivered on 17 February 2011, which
Limited
has done away with the mechanism seeking permission of
CoD. As such, the second application of the appellant could
not be considered by the CoD. The question of interest,
therefore, has not been addressed by any of the authorities.
In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the
appeal.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed on the above
th
terms. The impugned order dated 12 November 2013
passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CEXA No. 23 of 2013
is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the
CESTAT for consideration of the limited aspect of interest on
duty. No order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…..….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
.…….........................J.
[HIMA KOHLI]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2022.
6