AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl. No.,Show-cause Notice No. & Date,Order-in-Original No. & Dt.,Amount demanded
1,"C . N o . V/82/15/55/2018 dated
22/03/2018","O-I-O Sl. No.2 7/2018 dt.
31/10/2018","Rs.7,23,824/-
2,"C . N o . V/82/15/52/2018 dated
22/23.03.2018","O-I-O Sl. No.2 8/2018 dt.
31/10/2018","Rs.19,04,322/-
3,"C . N o . V/82/15/51/2018 dated
20/03/2018","O-I-O Sl. No.2 9/2018 dt.
31/10/2018","Rs.24,539/-
4,"C . N o . V/82/15/59/2018 dated
28/03/2018","O-I-O Sl. No.3 0/2018 dt.
31/10/2018","Rs.1,31,979/-
Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that the question of pre-deposit does not arise for the fact that there is a Revision application pending,,,
against the Orders of Appeal passed by the Commissioner. He further submitted that pending the revision application to adjudicate the case to arrive,,,
at the assessable value tantamount to re-opening an already settled issue in their own case and accepted in Review by the Department and that the,,,
issue is no longer res integra. He further submitted that it is well settled law that after issuing adjudication order, the adjudicating authority becomes",,,
functus officio, which means that his mandate comes to an end as he has accomplished the task of adjudicating the case. As a concept functus officio",,,
is bound with the doctrine of res-judicata which prevents the re-opening of a matter before the same Court or authority, in the circumstances the order",,,
of the Assistant Commissioner and re-confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is totally unwarranted as the said order of the Commissioner,,,
reaches the finality when accepted in Review by the Department. He also submitted that when the very issue having been opened and pending before,,,
the Revisionary Authority and further issuing the showcause notice on the same issue amounts to double jeopardy which is inadmissible in law. He,,,
also submitted that when the appeal or the revision application is filed before the higher forum, the earlier orders stands stayed/kept in abeyance.",,,
On the other hand the learned AR submitted that when the impugned order was passed at that time it was not brought to the knowledge of the,,,
Commissioner that the revision application of the appellant is pending before the Revisionary Authority, Government of India. She further submitted",,,
that the Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-Appeal does not speak of any such case pending before the Revisionary authority. Hence, the",,,
impugned order was passed as per law. She also submitted that the whole situation changed only subsequently i.e. on receipt of the communication,,,
from the Revisionary Authority. She also fairly conceded that the matter needs to be kept in abeyance till the final decision by the Revisionary,,,
authority.,,,
After considering the submissions of the both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant had already filed Revision",,,
application challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the Department’s appeal.,,,
I also find that the appellant has filed the revision application against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30/05/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central,,,
Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. I also find that the Revenue has now attached the copy of the notice issued by the Revisionary Authority which shows",,,
that the whole issue is pending with the Revisionary Authority, Government of India. Since the issue is pending before the Revisionary Authority, it",,,
was incumbent on the original authority not to adjudicate the protective notices issued by them and should have waited till the decision of the,,,
Revisionary Authority. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and I do the same and",,,
remand the matter to the original authority with a direction to keep the whole matter in abeyance till the decision of the Revisionary Authority.,,,
Accordingly, all the four appeals are disposed of by way of remand.",,,
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 11/12/2020),,,