Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur And Appeal No. E/3242/03 arising out of OrderinOriginal No. 18/CEX/2003 dated 28.8.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , Pune Irrigation Department Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? Appearance: Shri V.A. Sonpal, Advocate, for appellant Shri N.A. Sayyad, Authorised Representative (JDR), for respondent Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 18.1.2011 Date of Decision: 18.1.2011 ORDER NO Per: P.G. Chacko At the outset, there has been a debate on the question whether the appellant can pursue these appeals without clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The counsel for the appellant submits that a coordinate Bench, in a similar case, insisted on such clearance. In the face of this submission, the JDR has referred to the Supreme Courts judgment in ONGC vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd. (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 39 and also to the Courts order in CCE vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2010 (253) ELT 355 (SC). In ONGC case (supra), the apex court considered a dispute between that Corporation (a Central PSU) and City & Industrial Development Corporation (a State PSU) and took the view that the appellant should obtain clearance from a Committee to be constituted by the Central Government. The Committee was directed to be constituted with the following composition: (1) The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; (2) The Chief Secretary of the State; (3) Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the States; and (4) The Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings concerned. The case on hand was kept pending so that the appellant could produce clearance from the above Committee for prosecuting the case. In the case of BPCL (supra), a twoJudge Bench of the apex court examined the question and took the view that the question should be revisited by a Larger Bench of the Court. Accordingly, the Registry of the apex court was directed to place the matter before the Honble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. That view was taken after noting that the working of the Committee on Disputes had failed. The Cabinet Secretary of the Union had also expressed the same view before the apex court. In the present case before us, the question is whether we should wait for any clearance from such a Committee on Disputes, which is yet to be constituted. We are not inclined to wait for it inasmuch as the Honble Supreme Court itself is going to reconsider the whole issue (whether, in any dispute between a Central/State Government department and a Central/State PSU, the appellant should be required to obtain clearance from a Committee of Secretaries to file or pursue the appeal) and it is not even certain whether any Committee on Disputes will be constituted at all for the purpose of deciding whether the Maharashtra Irrigation Department should pursue these appeals. We also take into account the fact that these appeals are pending before this Tribunal for the last seven years. In these circumstances, in our view, it would be unjust and unfair to require the appellant to obtain clearance from a nonexistent Committee on Disputes. We, therefore, proceed with these matters. 2. Appeal No. E/1670/03 filed by Mechanical Hoist Manufacturing Division of the State Irrigation Department is against demand of duty of Rs.29,17,879/ in respect of hoists and parts cleared without payment of duty during 199798 to 199900, to M/s. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), M/s. Godavari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC) and M/s. Tapti Valley Development Corporation (TVDC) and also against penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. In a showcause notice dated 30.3.2001, the DGCEI alleged that the appellant had c