By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, FEB 23, 2016: NETIZENS may recall that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal had clubbed a number of appeals relating to the refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and passed an Interim order vide 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG in respect of nearly 192 cases. Based on the ratio of the Interim order, the individual appeals are disposed of. Revenue filed appeal against one such order and the High Court held that such order passed by relying on an interim order is not correct and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to pass a speaking order. The High Court observed:

+ Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that the Tribunal in all its eagerness to decide the pending cases, in order to reduce the pendency of appeals, has adopted a technique in clubbing nearly 192 cases and passing an interim order on all the issues involved in the batch of cases and the same is applied in the Final Order of the individual cases. We would have appreciated if, the Tribunal had passed the Final Order in one case and the same is adopted in other batch of cases. The scope of Interim Order is very limited. It is temporary and effective only during the pendency of litigation; ceases to exist as soon as the Final Order is passed. No law can be laid down in an interim order. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal is strange and contrary to the settled principles of law. Passing Final Order, referring to the paragraphs in the Interim Order is not a speaking order. As such, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable.

(See 2016-TIOL-321-HC-KAR-ST)