9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity shall while hearing any appeal shall have regard to circumstances under which the earlier order has been accepted and not challenged before the higher appellate forum by the Department. Above Section is in no way setting aside the well known principle of judicial precedents and the binding nature of the order of the higher Appellate Authority it only provides that when an order has been accepted on monetary limits there should be examination of the issue and order passed either by distinguishing the order or else by following the order - All the authorities below Tribunal would be bound by the earlier order of Tribunal. In the impugned order no ground has been stated from the revenue appeal filed before the said authority which ran con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as under:- 5. I have gone through the case record. It is evident from the record that the adjudicating authority dropped the demand relying on the decisions of Hon ble Tribunal mentioned in para 2 above. Hence, the adjudicating authority attached precedent value to the said CESTAT decisions, although the same were accepted by the department on monetary limits not on merits. Whereas para 7 of the CBEC instructions clearly states that the orders accepted on account of monetary limit shall not have precedent value. Thus, the impugned order was issued in gross violation of the CBEC instructions. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The case is remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh order c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice mentioned at sl. No. 1 is, recurring show cause notice on similar grounds for the period from 01.07.16 to 30.06.2017. All the above show cause notices/ statement of demands were kept pending for decision/ adjudication on above reasons till issuance of final order by the CESTAT, Allahabad 43. Here, find that CESTAT, Allahabad have decided the case by issuance of its final order No. A/70546-70551/2017-Ex [DB) dated 15.05.2017 and A71026/2018-EX[DB] dated 08.05.2018. I find that the CESTAT in its final order has upheld the findings of the Commissioner Appeals, Kanpur and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. In the final order no. A/70546-70551/2017-Ex [DB) dated 15.05.2017 has allowed the appeal of the party and Shri Subhash Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore First Appellate authority which was allowed and matter was remanded back to the original authority as per the impugned order. 2.4 Aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri A. K. Choudhary Departmental Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with submissions made in the appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 Para 3 of the impugned order is reproduced below:- 3. Aggrieved with the order, the Department filed this appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the Adjudicating Authority has violated the CBEC s instruction dated 20.10.2010 issued vide F. No.390/MISC/163/2010-JC. As per Para 7 of the said instructions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling appeal, application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law. (3) Notwithstanding the fact that no appeal, application, revision or reference has been filed by the Central Excise Officer pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), no person, being a party in appeal, application, revision or reference shall contend that the Central Excise Officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing appeal, application, revision or reference. (4) The Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or Court hearing such appeal, application, revision or reference shall have regard to the circumstances under which appeal, applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Thus in case the order of tribunal was accepted by the revenue on the monetary grounds than when the matter comes before the Tribunal, Tribunal can take a contrary view even if the earlier order was accepted by the revenue on the monetary grounds. All the authorities below Tribunal would be bound by the earlier order of Tribunal. 4.7 In the impugned order no ground has been stated from the revenue appeal filed before the said authority which ran contrary to the observation made by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 15.05.2017. In such a situation impugned order setting aside the order of original authority just for the reason that earlier order of Tribunal was accepted on the monetary grounds cannot be justified. Impugned order eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
