2018 (3) TMI 851 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - Held that - the order passed by the Tribunal is wholly correct in so far as it has recorded reasons that the two orders were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in cross appeals arising from a single order- in-original passed by the adjudicating authority and further that two orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were apparently conflicting - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of cross-appeals arising from a single order of adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Conflict between the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in separate appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue.
3. Tribunal's authority to set aside conflicting orders and remand the appeals for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved the disposal of cross-appeals arising from a single order of adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted the importance of hearing and deciding cross-appeals together to prevent conflicting orders. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and remanded the appeals for fresh consideration to maintain policy and judicial discipline.

2. The conflict arose from the separate appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders dated 26.12.2013 and 18.3.2014, respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the assessee's appeal but allowed the revenue's appeal, resulting in conflicting decisions. The Tribunal observed the conflicting nature of the orders and deemed it necessary to set them aside for a fresh decision.

3. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the revenue, arguing that no prejudice was caused by the separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal upheld its decision, emphasizing the correctness of setting aside conflicting orders and remanding the matter for a fresh consideration in line with legal procedures. The appeals were dismissed for lacking merit, with no costs imposed, as the questions of law referred did not arise in this context.

By addressing the issues of disposal of cross-appeals, resolving conflicts between orders, and the Tribunal's authority to remand for fresh consideration, the judgment clarified the importance of maintaining consistency and adherence to legal procedures in handling appeals arising from a common order of adjudication.