By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 13, 2016: THE Department had filed an appeal in the year 2007 against an o-in-o passed by CCE, Raigad. Revenue was aggrieved by the fact that the CCE had confirmed the demand of Rs.16.99crores but not imposed any penalty.

When the Revenue appeal came for hearing recently, the respondent assessee informed the Bench that their appeal against this order was already decided in their favour way back in the year 2012 and, therefore, the Revenue appeal cannot survive.

The AR did not dispute this factual position.

And so, the Tribunal while dismissing the Revenue appeal observed -

"3. …, we find that the demand involved from the very same impugned order has been set aside by this Tribunal, therefore, the Revenue's appeal is not survive. Hence, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as infructuous."

In passing: Had the Revenue formations updated their records and informed the AR about the appeal filed in 2007, when the appeal of the assessee was heard in January 2012, time and energy of all concerned would not have been wasted but put into productive use. When the left hand does not know what the right hand does, this is what happens…and it is not a one-off instance!

(See 2016-TIOL-408-CESTAT-MUM)