2015 (4) TMI 648 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Rectification of mistake - Held that - First order of the Tribunal very clear covers both the show cause notices and covered by the single adjudication order. The second order of the Tribunal again covers both the show cause notices and gives an impression that the Tribunal thought that the two cases though are similar but are different. It is well settled legal position if a matter is decided by any adjudicating authority or any appellate authority, the said authority cannot decide it again. The second judgment or order has to be ignored or is non est in the eyes of law. We accordingly hold so. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Tribunal's orders regarding two show cause notices.
2. Consideration of subsequent orders by the Commissioner.
3. Application of legal principles regarding res judicata.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Tribunal's orders regarding two show cause notices
The case involved two show cause notices issued to the respondent, which were adjudicated by a common order-in-original. The Tribunal initially remanded the matter in respect of both show cause notices, but in a subsequent order, it remanded the matter only in respect of one notice while dropping the other on limitation grounds. The Tribunal's second order gave the impression that it considered the cases as different, but it was established that both notices were covered by a single adjudication order. The legal principle of not deciding a matter again once it has been adjudicated by an authority was applied, leading to the conclusion that the second order of the Tribunal was non est.

Issue 2: Consideration of subsequent orders by the Commissioner
After the Tribunal's orders, the Commissioner re-adjudicated the matter based on the Tribunal's judgments. The Commissioner observed that the second order of the Tribunal was non est based on a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Commissioner decided to proceed with the case as per the first Tribunal order, considering the second order as invalid.

Issue 3: Application of legal principles regarding res judicata
The learned Additional Commissioner argued that the Tribunal could not have decided the same matter again in a subsequent order, making the second order non est. Legal precedents from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and a previous Tribunal decision were cited to support this argument. The respondent's counsel contended that both orders were correctly issued as they pertained to different show cause notices. However, upon examination of the Tribunal's orders and the facts presented, it was established that the Tribunal's second order was invalid as it covered the same issues already decided in the first order. The legal principle of res judicata was applied, leading to the dismissal of the second order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the second order of the Tribunal was non est in the eyes of the law, as it covered issues already decided in the first order. The Commissioner was directed to proceed with the case based on the first Tribunal order. The applications related to the case were disposed of accordingly.