JUDGMENT By Court:- The question involved in this writ petition is, whether in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India & Ors reported in (2011) 3 SCC 404 , the appeals. which have been dismissed by the' appellate authority for want of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (CoD) constituted in the light of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of, ONGC-II dated 11.10.1991.ONGC-III dated 7.1.1994 and ONGC-IV dated 20.7.2007. are required to be restored even if they were dismissed prior to the judgment delivered in the case of Electronics Corporations of India Limited? 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Ranchi, after Dealing the petitioner, passed an order in original case No.99/ST/COMMR/08 dated' 31.3.2008, whereby it has been held, inter alia, that the activity, of removing/extraction of ash from deposits/ash ponds by the petitioner-company is a cleaning activity and therefore, liable to Service Tax under "cleaning-service". Aggrieved against- the said order dated 31.3.2008, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Branch Kolkata. The Tribunal found that the petitioner did not obtain any clearance from CoD, which was constituted in pursuance of the various' orders passed Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE, reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 541 decided on 11.10.1991. Oil and Natural Gas 'Commission v. CCE reported in (2004) 6 SCC 437 decided on 7.1.1994 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. City & Industrial Development Corpn. Maharashtra Ltd., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 39 decided on 20.7.2007, 'which are referred above as ONGC-II, ONGC-III and ONGC-IV cases. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases and particularly in the earlier case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE, reported in 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 432 observed that public sector undertakings of the central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court and consequently the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, was called upon to handle the matter personally. (2) SCC 432 observed that public sector undertakings of the central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court and consequently the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, was called upon to handle the matter personally. The above order was followed by the order dated 11.10.1991 passed in ONGC-II case, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to setup a Committee consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises and Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry ,and Ministry of Government of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings of the Government of India and public sector undertakings in between themselves, to ensure that' no litigation comes to Court or to, a Tribunal without the, matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. Thereafter, in ONGC-III case decided on 7.1.1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that, in absence of clearance form the "Committee of Secretaries" (CoS), any legal proceeding will not be proceeded with and this was made subject to the rider that appeals and petitions filed without such clearance could be filed to save limitation, but it was also directed that the needful should be done within one month from such filing, failing which the matter would not be proceeded with In ONGC-IV case decided on 20.7.2007, Hon'bie Supreme Court extended the concept of dispute' resolution' by the High-Powered, committee to amicably resolve the disputes involving the State Governments and their instrumentalities. The idea behind the setting up of this Committee, initially called a "High-Powered' Committee." (HPC), later on called as "Committee of Secretaries" (CoS) and finally termed' as "Committee on Disputes" (CoD), was to ensure that resources of the State are not frittered away in inter se litigations between entities of the State, which could be best resolved, by an empowered CoD. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered all these facts in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) and observed in paragraph 15 that "the machinery contemplated was only to ensure that no litigation comes to Court without the parties having had an opportunity of conciliation before an in-house committee." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) observed that the principle and object behind the aforestated orders was unexceptionable and 'laudatory but at the same time, Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed 'that despite best efforts of the CoD, the- mechanism has not achieved the results' for which 'it was constituted and has, ill fact, led to delays in litigation. Hon'ble Supreme Court, has specifically taken note of very important fad that clearance is 'given in one case and refused in another case on the same set of facts, because of which one S.L.P Was filed in the Supreme Court on the ground of discrimination. Thereafter Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 17 as under:- "For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, while the same, is denied by the Revenue, Department. Similarly with' the enactment of regulatory laws in several cases there could be overlapping of jurisdiction between, let us say, SEBI and insurance, regulators. Civil Appeal lie to this Court. Stakes, in such cases are huge. One" cannot possible expect timely clearance by the CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not, to the other may result in generation of more and more litigations. The mechanism has outlived its utility." (Emphasis supplied) After observing above, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 held that, in the changed scenario indicated above the Court is of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of the Supreme Court in its various orders reported in (i) ONGC-II dated 11.10.1991. (ii) ONGE-III dated 7.1.1994 and (iii) ONGE-IV dated 20.7.2007 cases and ultimately recalled the above orders. 3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable for want of CoD clearance, vide order dated 10.9.2008. however, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for restoration in the appeal after obtaining' CoD clearance later on. 3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable for want of CoD clearance, vide order dated 10.9.2008. however, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for restoration in the appeal after obtaining' CoD clearance later on. The petitioner, finding the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the Tribunal, approached CoD for grant of permission to pursue its appeal but the CoD, by 'reasoned order dated 21.10.2008; refused permission to the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved against' the, refusal of CoD, preferred review petition' on 24.12.2008 with the prayer to review its order dated 21.10.2008 and allow petitioner to pursue appeal as such permission is given to the respondent – Revenue to pursue its appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Binod Poddar, is that on the one hand, petitioner has been denied opportunity to pursue its appeal before the Tribunal whereas permission has been granted to the respondent Department to challenge the order passed 'in original side by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi. Not only this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the appellate side; in another order, it has been held, that the petitioner is' not liable to pay service tax under the same or similar contract. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue is sub-judice, wherein all questions involved are required to be decided by the Tribunal. which are essentially subject-matter in the litigation, may those have been raised by the Revenue or may those 'have been raised by the petitioner and in the fact situation the appeal' should have been restored by the Tribunal on the application submitted by the petitioner for restoration of the appeal but unfortunately the petitioner's application for restoration of the appeal has been dismissed, vide order dated 26.9.2012. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner's appeal was filed on 14th July, 2008 prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited and petitioner's application for clearance has been rejected by the CoD and the Tribunal in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd, v. CCE-Kol.-II, vide order dated 17th September, 2012, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the same facts and circumstances. Ltd, v. CCE-Kol.-II, vide order dated 17th September, 2012, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the same facts and circumstances. In sum and substance, the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner's appeal could not be restored as firstly, it was filed prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) and secondly, in the similar facts and circumstances, another appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Learned senior counsel, Mr.B.Poddar vehemently submitted that for the same reason as above, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited has recalled its earlier orders, in pursuance of which CoD was formed and constituted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited very specifically observed that permission is granted to one and denied to another party on the same set of litigation and that prompted the Hon’ble Supreme Court even to recall all its earlier orders and in this case also, permission was admittedly granted to the Revenue to prefer, appeal but such permission had been denied to the petitioner and therefore, in the fact situation, this appeal deserves to be restored. Learned counsel for. the petitioner further vehemently submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court recalled the orders constituting CoD, which means that the order from the original date has been recalled and in that fact situation, there was, in fact, no necessity of CoD clearance on the date when the petitioner's application for restoration was considered and therefore, on the ground of earlier rejection of, permission by the CoD, the petitioner could not have been denied, permission to pursue its appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited nowhere laid down that all those appeals, which have already been dismissed for want of CoD permission or because of refusal of permission by the CoD, shall stand restored or can be restored on the application filed by the aggrieved party. It is also submitted that the order of dismissal of appeal of the petitioner dated 10.9.2008 attained finality as well as the order of refusal of permission to appeal pursue against the petitioner also attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application for restoration. 7. It is also submitted that the order of dismissal of appeal of the petitioner dated 10.9.2008 attained finality as well as the order of refusal of permission to appeal pursue against the petitioner also attained finality. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's application for restoration. 7. We considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court firstly, appreciated the concept of litigation. without conciliation between the public sector undertakings and the Central Government and it was so declared specifically in paragraph 16 of the judgment of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra). Thereafter, Supreme Court observed that, instead of. achieving the object, the mechanism of permission from the CoD resulted into more delay as well as loss of revenue' and because of that' experience, which is a working experience, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 18 that "in the changed scenario indicated above, we are of the view that time has come under the above circumstances to recall the directions of this Court in its various orders reported as: (i) ONCC-II dated 11.10.1991, (ii) ONCC-III dated 7.1.1994 and (iii) ONCC-IV dated 20.7.2007." Therefore, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly and' specifically indicated that "in the changed scenario", the orders passed in the above ONGC cases have been recalled, meaning thereby the effect of the judgment of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra) is prospective' in nature and all cases wherein appeals have been dismissed for want of CoD clearance or because of refusal of permission by the CoD to pursue the appeal cannot be restored automatically or on mere application. 9. However, in the fact situation where the appeal of any party has been dismissed for the above reasons, like dismissal of appeal on account of non-obtaining of clearance from the CoD or because Of refusal of permission by the CoD to pursue the appeal, in that situation, appellant-petitioner loses its right to challenge the order passed by the lower authority and then it can certainly challenge the order of dismissal of appeal as well as orders of CoD in accordance with law but not in the form of appeal, if its appeal has been dismissed prior to the judgment of Electronics Corporation of India Limited (supra). In that fact situation, if the matter comes before the Court and the Court finds that' the appellant has reasonable and valid grounds to challenge the order before the appellate authority, which opportunity it missed because of refusal of the permission by the CoD,' in that fact situation U~e Court. call certainly look into the legality of the order of dismissal of the appeal or order of refusal to restore of the appeal. It depends upon the facts of each case. Here in this case, the fact situation is not in dispute that permission to prefer appeal has been granted to the Revenue by the CoD and same has been denied to the writ petitioner and therefore, the matter was pending before the Tribunal relating to the same issue arising out of the original order but as has' been raised by the Revenue only, in that fact situation, in 'Our opinion, denial of opportunity to pursue the appeal to the writ petitioner cannot be justified in the light of the reasons given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for which even Honble Supreme Court had to recall its own earlier orders of even constitution of CoD. In addition to the above, the petitioner's contention is that one of the appellate orders, the same issue has been decided in favour of the petitioner and against' the Revenue and therefore, in that situation, the issue certainly requires consideration by the Tribunal and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of this case, the Tribunal' committed' error of law by dismissing petitioner's application for restoration of appeal. Which was dismissed on 10.9.2008. 10. In view of the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated 26th September, 2012 is set aside and petitioner's appeal. Service Tax Appeal No. 126/2008 as well as Stay Petition No. 479/2008 are restored to its original number before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata. Petition allowed.