9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of appeal based on doctrine of merger. Analysis: The judgment deals with the challenge raised by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Commissioner held that the doctrine of merger applied as the departmental appeal was filed on the same issue decided in the earlier appeal by the respondent. The authorized representative for the department argued that the earlier appeal by the respondent was limited to a specific demand of Customs duty, different from the disallowed amount challenged in the Revenue's appeal. The respondent, a supporting manufacturer, exported acrylic blankets under the DEEC scheme, but discrepancies were found in the content of the exported products. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,63,439 on the respondent for misutilization of imported raw material. The Appellate Commissioner upheld the dismissal of the respondent's earlier appeal, leading to the challenge on the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on the doctrine of merger. The department's representative contended that the scope of both appeals was distinct, and the doctrine of merger did not apply. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was argued that the orders were different and not subject to merger. The Tribunal had confirmed the Commissioner's dismissal of the respondent's appeal. The respondent's appeal only addressed a portion of the confirmed demand, and the remaining amount was not considered. The Tribunal held that the doctrine of merger was incorrectly applied by the Appellate Commissioner, citing a Supreme Court case where a similar principle was negated. The judgment emphasized that the scope of the appeals was different, and the doctrine of merger was not applicable in this scenario. The impugned order was deemed erroneous, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the Revenue's appeal based on merits. The judgment allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the earlier decision on the maintainability of the appeal. The case highlighted the importance of distinguishing between the issues raised in different appeals and emphasized that the doctrine of merger should not be applied where the subject matter of the appeals is distinct.
|
