2017 (3) TMI 1736 - HC - Central Excise

Adjudication Order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise - both appellant and Revenue submit that similar direction may be passed in the present case and in order to over come the difficulties arising in the present circumstances - Held that - The counsels agreed that both the appeals should be reheard by the first appellate authority and since the Learned Counsels fairly agreed that it should be done, we accordingly, allowed the writ application, set aside the order dated 27-10-2016 under Annexure-3 and call upon the appellate authority to once again issue fresh notices to both the parties in the connected appeals and after affording the parties a fresh opportunity of hearing pass a common order disposing of both the appeals - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed against an order of adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Disposal of the petitioner's appeal while the appeal filed by the Revenue against the same order remains pending.
3. Request for simultaneous disposal of both appeals by the appellate authority.
4. Reference to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding simultaneous disposal of appeals.
5. Agreement by counsels for both parties to rehear both appeals.
6. Directive to the appellate authority to reissue fresh notices and pass a common order on both appeals.
7. General observation regarding the handling of appeals against common adjudicatory orders.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with a case where the petitioner, Hotel Empires, was aggrieved by an order of adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority. However, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the same order was still pending, leading to a situation where the disposal of the petitioner's appeal preceded the resolution of the Revenue's appeal. The petitioner's counsel argued that both challenges should have been dealt with simultaneously to avoid potential confusion, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of avoiding situations where different orders are passed on connected appeals. The Court, in line with the parties' agreement, directed the appellate authority to rehear both appeals, issue fresh notices, and pass a common order to ensure fairness and avoid difficulties arising from separate disposals.

The Court referenced a Supreme Court directive from a previous case to support the decision to rehear both appeals simultaneously. The parties' counsels agreed to this approach, leading to the Court allowing the writ application, setting aside the previous order, and instructing the appellate authority to conduct a fresh hearing and issue a common order for both appeals. Additionally, the Court highlighted that similar issues might be prevalent in other cases and directed the appellate authority to ensure that all appeals against common adjudicatory orders are consolidated, heard together, and disposed of simultaneously to prevent future complications.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ application, emphasizing the importance of fairness and efficiency in handling appeals against common adjudicatory orders. The Court's directive aimed to prevent potential confusion and ensure that parties are not disadvantaged due to procedural errors. The judgment serves as a reminder for the appellate authority to streamline the process of handling connected appeals to promote consistency and effectiveness in adjudication.