9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo orders dated 19th February, 2015 of the Commissioner in respect of Appellant's two units viz. Unit II and Unit III and restored to him for fresh adjudication. 2. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urges the following reframed question of law for our consideration : " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case back to the adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh without having dealt with the appellant's contention that the issue was covered in the appellant's own case by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24th August, 2015" 3. We took up these two appeals for admission on the basis of the statement of Mr. Shah on instructions that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to its sister units under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e. 110% of the cost of production. 7. Being aggrieved by the two orders dated 13th February, 2015 in respect of Unit No.II and III, the appellant filed two appeals to the Tribunal. Along with the two appeals, the appellant filed an early hearing application as the issue was covered by an earlier order dated 24th August, 2015 of the Tribunal in respect of Unit No.II for the earlier period holding that the goods cleared to sister units are to be assessed to tax under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 and not under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 as held by order dated 28th November, 2014. This by the Tribunal holding that the issue is no more res integra as on an identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing before us, Mr. Shah, took us through the earlier order dated 14th October, 2014 passed by the Commissioner in respect of Unit No.II (leading to the Tribunal order dated 24th August, 2015) and the subsequent two orders both dated 19th February, 2015 of the Commissioner (leading to the impugned order of the Tribunal) to contend that all are identically worded to reach the same conclusion on similar facts. Prima facie, it appears so. Yet the Tribunal in the impugned order has completely ignored its earlier order in respect of Unit no.II rendered on 24th August, 2015 even when it appears to have been passed on identical adjudication orders (except difference in period and amount). 10. Ms. Cardozo, learned Counsel appearing for the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier order on identical fact situation i.e. orders of the adjudication. 12. In the above view, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. The impugned order is set aside and restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It is made clear that it would be open to the Tribunal on examination of the facts in the two appeals before it with the facts in the appeal filed by Unit No.II which led to the Tribunal order dated 24th August, 2015 and come to a finding that the earlier decision rendered on 24th August, 2015 would not apply in the present two appeals before the Tribunal. However, all that is expected by the Tribunal is to justify its conclusion, even if it is of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
