2017 (2) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Whether an adjudication order can, in the manner natural to protozoa, split into two? - Held that - The Commissioner who issued the order in 2005 was well aware of the existence of the order of 2002 and that it had, by lack of any appeal thereto, attained finality. Another order re-determining the value of the goods covered in the earlier order is, therefore, without sanction of law Doubtlessly, it was the Tribunal that did order the second de novo proceedings, but it occurred after conclusion of the first and without nullifying that de novo order - The adjudicating authority, fully aware that their own appeal was, as yet, pending for disposal in the Tribunal, should have awaited disposal of that appeal before taking up the adjudication. Even when the second order was in possession of the adjudicating authority, and being cognizant of the first de novo order, appropriate clarification should have been sought from the Tribunal. Not having taken corrective steps, the consequences must follow, as surely as night follows day. The impugned order is rendered a nullity and the merits in a null order is beyond the scope of consideration in this appeal - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Determining if an adjudication order can split into two.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s Universal Drinks Pvt Ltd against an order-in-original by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs. The dispute arose from the central excise authorities seeking to include the depreciation of fixed assets and a margin of profit in the assessable value of products cleared by the appellant. The initial show cause notice proposed a recovery of differential duty, leading to conflicting decisions by the adjudicating authority and subsequent appeals by both the Revenue and the assessee.

The Tribunal's orders resulted in a remand of the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication. However, the sequence of events became convoluted as the original authority proceeded with a de novo order without waiting for the outcome of their own appeal. This led to discrepancies in the assessment of the assessable value and duty liability for the same period of dispute, raising concerns about judicial propriety and legal authority.

The Tribunal noted the existence of multiple orders and the need for clarity on the assessable value determination. The subsequent orders revisiting the value of goods without addressing the prior determinations raised doubts about the validity of the proceedings. The Commissioner's decision in 2005 to re-determine the value of goods covered by a previous final order was deemed unauthorized and erroneous.

The Tribunal highlighted the adjudication manual's instructions against passing multiple formal adjudication orders on the same case, emphasizing the nullity of subsequent orders in such scenarios. The failure to rectify the situation and seek clarification from the Tribunal rendered the impugned order a nullity, leading to the discharge of the appellant from the consequences of the flawed decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal declared the impugned order null and void due to procedural irregularities and lack of legal authority, thereby relieving the appellant from the adverse effects of the decision. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural compliance and adherence to legal principles in adjudicatory processes.