By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 17, 2016: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

Incidentally,the Commissioner (Appeals) had in Revenue's appeal set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal filed by the department. It was held that the issue of refund was already decided, therefore, the adjudicating authority should not have passed another order on the same issue.

Nonetheless, as mentioned, Revenue is in appeal before the CESTAT against this order.

It is submitted by the AR that the appeal is on the ground that appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was on various grounds,however, the same were not dealt with.

The Bench inter alia observed -

+ The ground for setting aside the order given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the very same refund claim was already disposed of earlier by the adjudicating authority; therefore the adjudicating authority could not pass another order on the same refund claim.

+ We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely correct in setting aside the order and allowing the appeal of the Revenue. Since, the ground taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the adjudicating authority is set aside, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) need not to address all the grounds taken by the Revenue in their appeal.

+ Moreover, when the entire order itself was set aside and Revenue's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no grievance remained for filing an appeal before this Tribunal.

Holding that there is no infirmity in the impugned order,the same was upheld and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

In passing: A life of pleasure makes even the strongest mind frivolous at last – Edward George Bulwer-Lytton.

(See 2016-TIOL-2701-CESTAT-MUM)