IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 393 of 2010(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.V.J.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, FKCCI - WTC BUILDING, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 9. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, I.C.E BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 393 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 order passed by the Commissioner was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent; which however was dismissed as per Ext.P11 order, stating that the same was not maintainable for want of necessary permission from the Cabinet Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such Committee and no such permission is required in the case of State Government Public Sector Undertakings. 2. When the matter was admitted by this Court on 06.01.2010, further steps being pursued against the petitioner were intercepted by granting an interim stay for a period of one month. Now, a statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been conceded that there is no such Committee and no clearance from any Committee was required in the case of State PSUs; thus virtually conceding the position as put forth from the part of the petitioner. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 appeal afresh and pass appropriate orders WP(C) No.393/2010 2 in accordance with law on merits. This shall be finalized, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. However it is made clear that till Ext.P8 appeal finalized as above, Ext.P9 interim order of stay passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of Ext.P8 appeal shall continue to be in force. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc