1. These three appeals are being disposed off by this common order as they all have been admitted on an identical question of law arising out of common order passed in three different proceedings in the matter of levy of excise duty along with interest and penalty, denying benefit of cenvat credit to the appellants in respect of three different assessment periods.

2. Appellant-SAIL-BSP, a Government of India Enterprises engaged in manufacturing of iron & steel products, availed credit of the duty paid on input and capital goods used for manufacture of final product. The Revenue, however, initiated recovery proceedings by issuing demand under show-cause notice against the appellant which eventually led to passing of original orders by the jurisdictional Commissioner. Three different appeals were, therefore, filed by the appellant. However, as clearance from the Committee on Disputes (in short COD) as required during the relevant time in terms of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court on 11.10.1991 in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC), was not obtained, the appeals were dismissed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) though with liberty to apply for restoration of the three appeals on production of necessary clearance from COD. Later on, the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 (265) ELT 11 (SC) recalled its earlier direction issued from time to time in the matter of seeking clearance from COD, with the result that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said decision, it was no longer necessary for any aggrieved party to obtain COD before availing statutory remedy of appeal against the orders passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner in the matter of demand of excise duty, penalty, interest etc. The appellant herein filed three restoration applications in three appeals which were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for want of COD clearance. By the impugned common order, the restoration applications in three different cases filed by the appellant were rejected, giving rise to aforesaid three appeals.

3. While admitting the appeals, following substantial question of law for determination has been framed in each of the appeals:-

“Whether in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 (265) ELT 11 (SC), the Tribunal has wrongly refused to restore the appeals preferred by the appellant on the ground of limitation?”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued in extenso to submit that firstly, even assuming that earlier requirement of obtaining clearance from COD in terms of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.10.1991 in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) was in operation at the time when three appeals were filed, later on, those directions and all subsequent similar directions in the matter of obtaining clearance from COD were recalled by the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 17.2.2011 passed in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (supra). Therefore, it was the duty of the Tribunal to restore all the appeals to its original number and decide the same on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the Tribunal adopted an approach which was completely erroneous in law in holding that there was delay in filing restoration application, ignoring that after the judgment in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (supra), all the appeals were liable to be restored because the dismissal of the appeals was not for want of prosecution or for want of mandatory pre-deposit, but only for want of COD clearance which requirement no longer exists. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Kirti