TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that their own appeal was, as yet, pending for disposal in the Tribunal, should have awaited disposal of that appeal before taking up the adjudication. Even when the second order was in possession of the adjudicating authority, and being cognizant of the first de novo order, appropriate clarification should have been sought from the Tribunal. Not having taken corrective steps, the consequences must follow, as surely as night follows day. The impugned order is rendered a nullity and the merits in a null order is beyond the scope of consideration in this appeal - appeal disposed off. - E/717/2006 - A/85519/17/EB - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri A K Prasad, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of original authority to decide the matter afresh. This itself was a departure from the usual practice of the Tribunal in disposing of such cross-appeals in the same proceeding. Be that as it may, even before the remand ordered on appeal of Revenue, the original authority had, in de novo order dated 28th June, 2002 on the appeal of assessee, confirmed the demand of ₹ 7,30,377/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-. From the records, it appears that this de novo order has not been challenged by Revenue, or by assessee, thus according it finality. It would also appear that the existence of this de novo order was not brought to the notice of the bench that heard the appeal of Revenue. 4. It would also appear that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal issue has been raised, it must be answered first and, only upon that contention not being sustained, can the issues of merit be addressed. 7. There are two orders of the Tribunal in relation to the same dispute. This in itself though improbable, may not necessarily be an impossibility. The order that was appealed against originally determined assessable value for the entire period of dispute and the de novo order consequent upon appeal of assessee, arrived at an assessable value with duty liability of ₹ 7,73,422/-. The quantum of duty is not relevant but the finding was on the totality of assessable value. This is the determination of assessable value on clearances during the entire period of dispute. The second de novo order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Excise Customs (Fourth Edition corrected upto 31st March 1988) is explicit in instructions to its officers thus: 31A. Adjudicating officers should guard against passing two formal adjudication orders on one and the same case. The legal position in this respect is that, where a matter has already been adjudicated by the competent authority, and another order of adjudication is passed relating to the same transaction subsequently, the second order is a nullity. The authority who undertakes the enquiry resulting in the second adjudication acts without jurisdiction. The second order being a nullity, it should be taken as not to exist at all. When the fact of such an order having been passed is brought to light, the records shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
