The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant should not be deprived of its right to pursue the legal remedy as per the provisions of the law, and the circular dated 24.3.2011 and the out-lived utility of the Committee on Disputes cannot take away the statutory right of appeal.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 25.10.2012, passed by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. ST/ROA No. 80/2012, ST/Appeal No. 124/2006, raising the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether respondent No. 1 was bound to restore the Appeal No. 124 of 2006 on its original number in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others, (2001) 3 SCC 404 and hear the appeal on merit ?

(ii) Whether the order dated 2.11.2006 passed by Committee on Disputes (COD) amounts to denial of promotion (sick permission) to file appeal?

(iii) Whether after passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others (supra), order dated 2.11.2006 automatically extinguished?

(iv) Whether instructions dated 24.3.2011 issued by Government of India after passing of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court about COD is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India?

(v) Whether the Central Excise Department has the power to claim service tax again from the appellant from April, 2002 to September, 2003 when it has already been deposited in the consolidated fund of India under the Head 0044?

(vi) Whether the action of the respondents-Central Excise is without jurisdiction and amounts to malafide exercise of the administrative powers?

(vii) Whether depositing of service tax in the consolidated fund of India directly amounts to irregularity?

(viii) Whether the Central Excise has the authority to demand Service Tax afresh with penalty under Section 76 of the Act when the amount has already been accounted for in the Consolidated Fund of India?

(ix) Whether manifest injustice has been done to the appellant?”

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide Order-in-Original dated 8.2.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Central Customs Excise, Chandigarh, demand of service tax to the tune of Rs.5,54,21,793/- was confirmed against the appellant. It is a case where the dispute is not regarding non-payment of tax. The amount of tax, in fact, had been deposited by the appellant, but it was deposited directly in the Government treasury and not in the bank designated by the department. The period in question is from October, 2002 to September, 2003. The Order-in-Original was challenged before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30.10.2006, the Tribunal noticing the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC), opined that as requisite permission from the Committee on Disputes had not been obtained, the parties were relegated to the Committee on Disputes with liberty to the appellant to get the appeal restored after clearance from the Committee on Disputes. The application filed by the appellant for restoration of the appeal after the decision was taken by the Committee on Disputes on 2.11.2006 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.3.2008 noticing that the Committee on Disputes had directed the parties to sit across the table and settle the matter, which was not the clearance or permission granted by the Committee on Disputes to permit the appellant to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, though efforts were made by both the parties to settle the dispute, but with no positive result. Later on, considering the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India and others, (2001) 3 SCC 404, where it was opined that Committee on Disputes had out-lived its utility, the order passed in Oil and Natural Gas Commission's case (supra) was re-called. The appellant preferred fresh application before the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2012 for the reason that earlier similar application had