JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. - This appeal is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai dated May 20, 2002 in T.A. No. 688 of 2000. The petitioner - Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. They are the registered dealers on the files of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nandanam Assessment Circle, Chennai. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed appeal against the original assessment order contending that there was no transfer of any new commercial commodity in respect of the job work undertaken by them on behalf of various co-operative sugar mills. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the assessing officer to reconsider the issue. The work undertaken by the petitioner are repair work of the machinery parts and accessories thereof relating to various co-operative sugar mills. While carrying out the repairing work, they used to replace the worn out parts with the new parts purchased locally from registered dealers to complete the repairing. On completion of the repairs, the machineries/parts were re-despatched to the respective sugar mills. Such work has been done on the rollers which is used for crushing sugarcane. Once the shell fitted on the roller shaft is worn-out, the said rollers are sent to the petitioners for repair. The worn out shell is taken out by breaking it while the shaft remains in the same form. The petitioner claimed exemption in respect of such replacement of the shell. The assessing officer, while considering the matter confirmed the levy of tax in respect of the job work undertaken by them by holding that a new commercial commodity came into existence and thereby their claim of exemption in respect of the roller shaft was not accepted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the decision of the Supreme Court Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1993] 90 STC 47, wherein it is stated that the rough castings are only iron castings without any machining or processing and if any process is made, the originality is lost and the resultant product is a new commodity, confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the same. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the same. The assessee is before us, on appeal against the said order by formulating the following substantial question of law : "Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that a new commodity has emerged in the replacement of shell by merely tapping and heating ?". We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner being a public sector undertaking before filing an appeal against the Commercial Tax Department, we are of the view has to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes (CoD). The apex court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. v. City & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd. [2007] 7 SCC 39, after referring to the earlier cases in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise [1992] Supp. 2 SCC 432, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 541, Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise [2004] 6 SCC 437, in which directions have been issued to set up Governmental committee to resolve the dispute between the intra-governmental or inter-Governmental disputes involving Government Departments or Government owned companies of the Central and State Governments, rather than adjudicating the same before courts of law, and having regard to the fact of the particular case, that the matter was pending since 1990 and considering the nature of the controversy, which is a recurring feature, directed that a committee be formed to sort out the differences between the Central Government and the State Government entities. The composition of such committee is also stated to be as follows : 1. The Cabinet Secretary of the Union; 2. Chief Secretary of the State; 3. Secretaries of the departments concerned of the Union and the States; and 4. Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector reported in [2003] 3 SCC 472 has held as follows : "Disputes between Government Departments cannot be contested in court. States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism for resolving interdepartmental controversies. Chief Executive Officers of the undertakings concerned. The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector reported in [2003] 3 SCC 472 has held as follows : "Disputes between Government Departments cannot be contested in court. States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism for resolving interdepartmental controversies. Constitution of committees suggested which should consist of Chief Secretary, Secretaries of the departments concerned, Secretary of Law and Secretary of Finance (where financial commitments are involved) whose decision should be binding on all departments concerned." The apex court also held that it shall be the obligation of every court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. The same has been reiterated in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 55 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4529 of 2008, etc., decided on July 18, 2008. In order to discharge that obligation, when we posed a question to the learned counsel as to whether such a clearance has been obtained from the CoD, he admitted that such a certificate from CoD has not been obtained. Hence, the revision is dismissed as not entertainable in the absence of the clearance, however, by giving liberty to the petitioner to move this court after obtaining clearance from CoD. No costs.