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.
1. The appeal challenges the order dated 12 th
 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
filed,   challenging   the   order   dated   26 th
  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
appellant seeking rectification of the order dated 30 th
 October
2012   passed   by   the   CESTAT.     The   application   was   filed   on
the   ground   that   while   passing   the   order   dated   30 th
  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”).
2. The   appellant   is   a   Public   Sector   Undertaking   (for
short “PSU”) of the Government of India.   The appellant was
served   with   a   Show   Cause   Notice   dated   4 th
  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
2 nd
  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
the   CESTAT   setting   aside   the   penalty   vide   order   dated   11 th
June, 2007.
5. It   is   the   contention   of   the   appellant   that   in   the
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.
6. The   appellant,   thereafter   on   11 th
  February   2011,
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
17 th
  February, 2011 in the case of   Electronics Corporation
of India Limited v. Union of India and Others 1
, held that
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

and   Another   v.   Collector   of   Central   Excise 2
,   Oil   and
Natural   Gas   Commission   v.   Collector   of   Central   Excise 3
and   Oil   and   Natural   Gas   Corporation   Limited   v.   City   &
Industrial   Development   Corporation,   Maharashtra
Limited and Others 4
.  
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,
which was dismissed by the CESTAT vide its order dated 11 th
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
application was dismissed by CESTAT on 30 th
 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
that the CoD, vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 2 nd
 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
11 th
  February   2011.     In   the   meantime,   the   judgment   of   this
5

Court   in   the   case   of   Electronics   Corporation   of   India
Limited   (supra) was delivered on 17 th
  February 2011, which
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
terms.     The   impugned   order   dated   12 th
  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